Evelyn Padin
How Judge Padin rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Padin
Evelyn Padin is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Padin received a commission on June 24, 2022.
Judge Padin's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Padin, 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
Contacting chambers
Use CM/ECF for court communications and describe efforts to confer with other parties before requesting court action.
“Every communication requesting the Court’s input must indicate the requesting party’s efforts to first confer with the other party(ies) to resolve the matter.”
Filing
Submit one courtesy copy of motion papers, using a USB drive if they exceed one large binder.
“Litigants should submit one courtesy copy of all motion papers to the Court, unless the materials comprise more than one large binder, in which case they should be submitted on a USB drive.”
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 Padin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Berkelhammer v. ADP TotalSource Group, Inc., she denied summary judgment on the restitution claim because the defendants’ knowledge of the disputed transactions remained a fact question.
“The Court will accordingly DENY Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count IX.”
Procedural preferences
In Westpark Electronics v. EDealer, Padin granted the defendants' motion to vacate entries of default and denied the plaintiffs' default-judgment motions. She found a litigable defense, no undue prejudice, and no willful or culpable delay under the governing factors.
“Defendants' cross-motion to vacate is accordingly granted.”
Cautions
In Murray-Nolan v. Rubin, Padin dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice because the plaintiff had already amended once and another amendment likely would be futile.
“the motions to dismiss are GRANTED and the Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Because Plaintiff has already had one opportunity to amend and because any further amendment would likely be futile, the dismissal will be WITH PREJUDICE.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court will GRANT Defendant's Motion, D.E. 17. The Court will DISMISS Plaintiff's Title VII claim with prejudice.”
“the motions to dismiss are GRANTED and the Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Because Plaintiff has already had one opportunity to amend and because any further amendment would likely be futile, the dismissal will be WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants' cross-motion to vacate is accordingly granted.”
“Plaintiffs motions for default judgment are denied.”
“genuine disputes of material fact ... persist, and ther[efore Farm Family's motion] will be denied.”
“Farm [Family's MSJ] will be DENIED [and BrightView's MSJ] will be GRANTED.”
“Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff[']s claim under the DTSA.”
“[Plaintiff's m]otion for summary judgment is DENIED in whole with respect to Count II and ... GRANTED with respect to the issue of liability in Count I.”
“For the reasons expressed below, the motions will be DENIED.”
“the Class has adequately pled a common law trespass claim against 3M.”
“the Court will DENY Hertz's partial motion for summary judgment as to Counts I and II”
“will GRANT Frissora's motion for summary judgment as to Counts I-IV, and will DISMISS the SAC.”
“Notte's motion for default judgment against New Sushi, D.E.s 17 & 18, is GRANTED as to New Sushi's liability”
“Because the allegations against Martha are vague and unsupported, the Court will DENY the motion without prejudice.”
“GRANT in part and DENY in part the CFTC's Motion for Summary Judgment”
“GRANT in part and DENY in part Dembro's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment”
“GRANT in part and DENY in part the Default Judgment Motion”
“GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment”
“GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment”
“ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion, D.E. 59, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
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 | 33 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 33 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 32 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 26 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 24 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 28 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 33 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 47 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 72 |
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 Padin: 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 Padin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Padin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Padin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace