Esther Salas
How Judge Salas rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Salas
Esther Salas is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Salas received a commission on June 14, 2011.
Judge Salas's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Salas, 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.
- Individual Judicial Preferences & Procedures ↗
- Final Pretrial Order Template ↗
- Sample Template for Disputes Using Column Format ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
File extension requests in CM/ECF; oral or fax requests alone are insufficient.
“The Court will not accept oral requests for extensions over the phone or via fax without a corresponding request via CM/ECF.”
Filing
Submit courtesy copies of motions only if the judge’s staff advises you to do so.
“Courtesy copies of motions need NOT be submitted to the Court unless otherwise advised by Judge Salas’s staff.”
Motions
Obtain leave before filing a formal motion, except as Local Rule 12.1 permits.
“Except as permitted by Local Rule 12.1, no formal motions may be filed without leave of Court.”
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 Salas decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a factual Rule 12(b)(1) attack the plaintiff bears the burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction with verified evidence; an unsigned/unverified complaint and unsigned interrogatory responses carry little to no weight.
“Because Liu does not provide any verified evidence to rebut Defendants' factual challenge to the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over his FLSA claim, he fails to meet his burden of proof.”
Procedural preferences
In Vanderwerff v. Quincy Bioscience, Salas affirmed a magistrate judge’s refusal to stay class certification discovery during a pending dismissal motion. She held that filing a dispositive motion alone did not establish good cause for a stay.
“it is well settled that the mere filing of a dispositive motion does not constitute 'good cause' for the issuance of a discovery stay.”
A plaintiff cannot amend the complaint through its summary-judgment opposition; theories and relief not pleaded (e.g. compensatory relief) are not considered.
“Because Plaintiffs cannot amend their Complaint in opposition to summary judgment, the Court focuses its inquiry on whether the District violated the stay put rule.”
In Hudson River Waterfront Conservancy v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Salas dismissed the complaint without prejudice for standing defects and gave the plaintiffs one final chance to amend, warning that failure to cure those defects would close the case.
“The Court will provide Plaintiffs a final opportunity to amend their pleading to cure the standing-related deficiencies described herein. If Plaintiffs fail to cure the deficiencies set out in this Opinion, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to close this matter.”
Cautions
Attorney disqualification is a 'hard remedy' the court hesitates to impose except when absolutely necessary, and the movant bears the burden of establishing a Rules-of-Professional-Conduct violation.
“Disqualification is a hard remedy, 'which courts should hesitate to impose except when absolutely necessary.'”
To get the FLSA's 3-year (willful) limitations period, a plaintiff must plead specific facts of willfulness; alleged misclassification or differential recordkeeping sounds in negligence, not willfulness, and the claim is dismissed as time-barred.
“the alleged differences in Defendants' recordkeeping as to Yang and Hsu, without additional factual allegations, do not plausibly reflect an 'indifference toward the requirements imposed by the FLSA.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's motion to disqualify counsel is denied.”
“the Court concludes that Defendants timely responded to the Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment is denied.”
“the Court dismisses the Complaint for improper venue without prejudice.”
“the Court GRANTS the District's motion for summary judgment. (D.E. No. 63).”
“Defendants' appeal is DENIED, and the Magistrate Judge's July 26 Order is AFFIRMED.”
“Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED as to Yang and Hsu's FLSA claims. Accordingly, their claims are dismissed, with prejudice, as time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations.”
“Because Liu does not provide any verified evidence to rebut Defendants' factual challenge to the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over his FLSA claim, he fails to meet his burden of proof... Accordingly, Liu's claim is dismissed... the dismissal is with prejudice.”
“Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Appeal (D.E. No. 65) is DENIED”
“Defendants' unopposed Motion (D.E. No. 59) is GRANTED. Moreover, because the June 13 Opinion provided Plaintiff with ‘a final opportunity’ to amend ..., the Court DISMISSES the entirety of Plaintiff's SAC with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion (D.E. No. 79) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion-whether brought under Rule 59(e) or 60(b)-is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motions to Dismiss the Complaint and for Sanctions are DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion for sanctions, (D.E. No. 53), is likewise DENIED as moot”
“The Court will therefore GRANT the Motion and provide that relief.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Franchisee Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“In light of this transfer, the Court does not address the merits of the Wyndham Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Wyndham Defendants may re-file that application, post-transfer, at the direction of the Western District of Texas.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the CFG Motion to Dismiss and DENIES the County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Count Five in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the CFG Motion to Dismiss and DENIES the County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”
“For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion (D.E. No. 45) is DENIED.”
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 | 3 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 11 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 36 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 36 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 34 |
| Mar 2025 | 9 | 35 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 31 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 26 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 28 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 28 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 49 |
| Mar 2022 | 4 | 74 |
| Sep 2021 | 14 | 73 |
| Mar 2021 | 40 | 63 |
| Sep 2020 | 17 | 52 |
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 Salas: 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 Salas with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Salas, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Salas's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace