Edward Sunyol Kiel
How Judge Kiel rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kiel
Edward Sunyol Kiel is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Kiel received a commission on March 25, 2024.
Judge Kiel's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kiel, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Mail chambers two copies of any individual filed document longer than 40 pages.
“Two copies of all filed papers exceeding 40 pages per individual document shall be provided to Chambers by mail.”
Motions
Request leave by a pre-motion letter of no more than three single-spaced pages before the motions listed in the preferences.
“a party must submit a pre-motion letter, not to exceed three single-spaced pages, requesting leave to file the following motions:”
Conferences
Request an adjournment at least five business days before the conference or hearing and state whether all parties consent.
“adjournment requests must be made no later than five business days before the scheduled conference or hearing and shall indicate whether all parties consent.”
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 Kiel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In ERISA multiemployer withdrawal-liability collection, rejects any 'economic nexus' requirement for common-control (brother-sister) liability and holds that failure to demand arbitration within 60 days waives the right to contest the amount.
“there is no 'economic nexus' requirement that an enterprise must meet in order to qualify as a 'trade or business.' ... Inky did not object to the notices from the Fund. Accordingly, Inky's waived its right to dispute the amount”
In a PPP loan-forgiveness challenge, the court focused on the services the borrower actually provided when assessing its industry classification, treating a hotel vendor differently from a hotel operator.
“The record shows that AC Linen is a vendor to hotels.”
In Kacmaz v. Soto, Kiel granted an immigration detainee a bond hearing after finding that the governing detention provision required an opportunity to seek bond in that case.
“I conclude that petitioner is being unlawfully detained under § 1225”
Procedural preferences
In Wolfe v. State of New Jersey Department of Corrections, Kiel declined supplemental jurisdiction after disposing of the federal claims and remanded the remaining state claims, finding no reason to retain them and citing comity.
“I find that there are no considerations that would require the Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. ... comity favors dismissal, as the state court is best positioned to consider purely state law claims.”
In J.A. v. Monroe Township Board of Education, Kiel denied a challenge to an interlocutory partial-summary-judgment order because the plaintiffs used Rule 59(e) instead of timely seeking reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i).
“Rule 59 is designed only to address orders rendering final judgment -- not interlocutory orders. ... Plaintiffs' recourse in disagreeing with my decision ... was to timely move for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). ... Their failure to do so alone warrants denial of their motion.”
Cautions
In Hadjiev v. Warden Thompson, Kiel dismissed the remaining habeas claim for failure to exhaust after the petitioner skipped a Bureau of Prisons appeal tier and showed no cause for doing so.
“Petitioner's failure to complete the administrative remedy process deprived the Bureau of a chance 'to develop a factual record and apply its expertise' before he filed the Petition in federal court. ... I find that petitioner has not demonstrated cause for his failure to exhaust and will dismiss the Petition accordingly.”
In Sarro v. Warden Thompson, Kiel administratively terminated a habeas petition without prejudice because the petitioner had neither paid the five-dollar fee nor submitted an application to proceed without prepaying it; the order said this was not a dismissal for limitations purposes.
“The Clerk of Court will be ordered to administratively terminate the Petition without prejudice. ... Such an administrative termination is not a 'dismissal' for purposes of the statute of limitations”
In Glaud, Kiel dismissed fiduciary-duty claims against medical reviewers because the plan reserved benefit decisions to its board.
“MAPs do not have discretionary authority over benefit entitlement.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motion will be GRANTED and judgment will be entered in favor of the Fund and against Inky's.”
“The State Motion at ECF No. 71 is granted in part and dismissed in part. Summary judgment is awarded on the federal claims asserted in plaintiff's amended complaint.”
“The University Correctional Motion at ECF No. 63 is dismissed without prejudice.”
“The Sanction Motion (ECF No. 172) is GRANTED and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“The Dismissal Motion (ECF No. 186) is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiffs' motion at ECF No. 270 is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Petition as unexhausted.”
“Petitioner seeks an order preventing his arrest, which indicates that he is not in state or federal custody. ... Therefore, I lack jurisdiction over the Petition pursuant to § 2241.”
28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) sua sponte screening of an IFP pro se Section 1983 complaint. Amended complaint dismissed WITHOUT prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim (conclusory harassment/assault allegations, no facts as to one defendant); plaintiff granted 30 days to file a second amended complaint subject to renewed Section 1915 review. Grounding quote: 'For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff may submit a proposed second amended complaint within 30 days.' This screening dismissal did not resolve a party motion.
28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas administratively terminated WITHOUT prejudice for failure to pay the $5 filing fee or submit an IFP application; Clerk directed to send an IFP form. Court footnoted that an administrative termination is not a 'dismissal' for limitations purposes and the case can be reopened. This was a docket-management staging order rather than a ruling on a party motion or the merits. It is representative of a high-frequency pattern in his early-2024 Camden docket (see also Gomez Enamorado 1:24-cv-06939, same disposition 2024-06-20).
28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas administratively terminated WITHOUT prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application (same disposition as Sarro 1:24-cv-05577). This docket-management order did not resolve a party motion and illustrates the recurring administrative-termination pattern.
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion (ECF No. 23) will be GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction will be GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Amended Petition for lack of jurisdiction and as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 152.0 days (N = 10).
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 | 7 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 39 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 7 | 39 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 41 |
| Mar 2025 | 7 | 51 |
| Sep 2024 | 25 | 37 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 22 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Kiel: 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 Kiel with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kiel, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kiel's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace