Claire Claudia Cecchi
How Judge Cecchi rules, drawn from 62 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cecchi
Claire Claudia Cecchi is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Cecchi received a commission on June 14, 2011.
Judge Cecchi's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Cecchi, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Include a proposed order with every request.
“All Requests should be accompanied by a proposed order.”
Filing
File briefs and proposed orders as searchable PDFs.
“All Briefs and Proposed Orders must be filed in searchable PDF format.”
Filing
Send courtesy copies only when chambers requests them.
“Counsel shall not provide courtesy copies to Chambers unless requested.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- Second Amended Standing Order 2026-02: In Re Increase in Immigration-Related Habeas Corpus Petitions seeking Emergent Relief ↗
- Standing Order 2025-05: IN RE Procedures for Access to and Service of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 2025-04: IN RE "Schedule A" Cases ↗
- Standing Order 2024-03: In re: Amendment to Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents and Guidance for Same ↗
- Standing Order 2024-02: Electronic Signatures ↗
How Judge Cecchi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In RGD Holding v. Perkins, Cecchi rejected a limitations defense against indemnification and contribution claims because no judgment had yet been entered against RGD in the underlying action.
“Without such a judgment, the statute of limitations for neither Plaintiff’s claim for indemnification, nor its claim for contribution has accrued.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Lakeland Bank, Cecchi declined to terminate a fair-lending consent order because the bank still had unfulfilled obligations; a promise of future compliance did not establish substantial compliance.
“But a promise to reach substantial compliance in the future is not substantial compliance.”
In Bryant v. City of Newark, Cecchi denied partial summary judgment without prejudice after the plaintiff's Rule 56(d) affidavit identified outstanding discovery that could create a material fact dispute.
“because resolving the outstanding discovery disputes may create a material issue of fact, summary judgment as to Claims One through Four is not appropriate at this time.”
In Jenner v. Volvo Cars, Cecchi allowed a second amended class complaint despite the defendant's need to revise its dismissal motion, finding that burden did not impair its ability to present its case.
“ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the First Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 100) is GRANTED;”
She remanded a Social Security case when the ALJ did not explain how an impairment found severe affected the residual functional capacity.
“the ALJ’s opinion [simply] does not provide a sufficient ‘glimpse into [her] reasoning’ on this point, or ‘build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result.’”
Cautions
In Fagan v. Barnhiser, Cecchi identified two nonexistent judicial opinions cited by a self-represented litigant. She admonished him but denied sanctions after he withdrew the citations and apologized.
“Given that upon notice by Defendants Plaintiff withdrew reliance on the nonexistent cases and apologized, the Court finds that monetary sanctions would be excessive.”
In Fagan v. Barnhiser, Cecchi admonished a self-represented litigant who cited nonexistent opinions and warned that repeating the conduct could bring sanctions, including monetary penalties.
“Instead, the Court admonishes Plaintiff for his improper conduct and warns that he will be subject to sanctions, including monetary penalties, should he do so again in the future.”
In Stroboulis v. MetLife Bank, Cecchi dismissed a putative heir's suit for lack of standing because his mother was living and his possible future inheritance gave him no present interest in her property.
“However, it is axiomatic that an heir has no legal rights to the property of a living person.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because Plaintiff has failed to adequately demonstrate that he has standing to bring suit in this Court, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 5) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend the First Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 100) is GRANTED”
“because resolving the outstanding discovery disputes may create a material issue of fact, summary judgment as to Claims One through Four is not appropriate at this time... ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment in part as against Claims One through Four (ECF No. 62) is denied without prejudice”
“ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss Claim Five (ECF No. 62) is granted. Claim Five is dismissed without prejudice”
“he has failed to meet the high burden for reconsideration and his motion is denied... ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 24) is DENIED”
“the Court finds that monetary sanctions would be excessive. Instead, the Court admonishes Plaintiff for his improper conduct and warns that he will be subject to sanctions... ORDERED that Defendants' motion for sanctions (ECF No. 28) is DENIED”
Cecchi adopted Magistrate Judge James B. Clark III's sua sponte Report and Recommendation in full after de novo review of the pro se plaintiff's objection. She dismissed the action under Rules 8 and 41(b) because the voluminous, unintelligible submissions did not plainly state jurisdiction or a claim. No party motion was decided; earlier motions to dismiss had been denied as moot. The order illustrates her review of recommendations and enforcement of Rule 8 in pro se cases.
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County.”
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Wettre's recommendation that 'this action be remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex' for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The recommendation arose from the court's own order to show cause; no party moved to remand. A defendant's motion to dismiss remained pending and was not decided in this order.
“ORDERED that the Government’s motion to terminate the consent order and dismiss this action (ECF No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 159) is GRANTED;”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 130) and Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 131) are DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and the City Defendant’s cross-claims with prejudice is GRANTED.”
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 11,396 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 11,396 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 11,218 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 11,572 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 11,562 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 11,790 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 11,300 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 10,701 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 10,238 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 8,109 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2,185 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1,219 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 273 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, not for Judge Cecchi: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 8,970 | 8.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 370 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,266 | 5.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 2,317 | 14.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 17 | 36.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 8,970 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,921 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2023 | 8,378 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 7,053 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,064 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 9,031 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 10,590 | 9 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Cecchi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cecchi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cecchi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace