Madeline Cox Arleo
How Judge Arleo rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Arleo
Madeline Cox Arleo is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Arleo received a commission on November 21, 2014.
Judge Arleo's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Arleo, 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
Mail one unredacted courtesy copy of sealed motions or motions with more than 50 exhibit pages; do not send other courtesy copies.
“Courtesy copies are no longer required, unless a motion is: (1) filed under seal; or (2) supported by exhibits exceeding 50 pages. Only in those instances shall the parties file one unredacted paper copy of any proposed orders, motion papers, briefs, and accompanying exhibits by regular mail to chambers, clearly marked ‘Courtesy Copy.’”
Trial
Send proposed jury charges in Word format one week before trial.
“Counsel shall provide a copy of proposed jury charges to Chambers in Microsoft Word format via email or thumb drive one week before trial.”
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 Arleo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In High Crest Functional Medicine v. Horizon Blue Cross, Arleo allowed alternative ERISA § 502(a)(3) equitable claims to proceed at the pleading stage alongside § 502(a)(1)(B) benefit claims. She cited decisions finding no bright-line pleading-stage bar under Varity.
“several courts in this district and circuit have found that Varity does not establish a bright line rule precluding the assertion of alternative claims under sections 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3) at the motion to dismiss stage.”
Procedural preferences
In Schultz v. Midland Credit Management, Arleo granted summary judgment against FDCPA plaintiffs who showed confusion and fear after receiving debt collection letters but no reliance or concrete injury sufficient for standing.
“Plaintiffs have offered no proof of reliance and Plaintiffs’ confusion and fear does not have a ‘close relationship’ to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for fraud.”
In Portal v. Levine, Arleo dismissed a default judgment motion without prejudice because the plaintiffs filed no supporting brief identifying the claims on which judgment was sought or explaining how damages should be calculated.
“Absent a brief, it is unclear under which causes of action Plaintiffs move for default judgment. The Motion is DISMISSED without prejudice, and Plaintiffs may refile the Motion with a brief to address which causes of action they move under and how damages ought to be calculated.”
Cautions
In Peavy v. U.S. Bank Trust, Arleo abstained under Colorado River and dismissed without prejudice an FDCPA and consumer fraud action that overlapped with a pending state foreclosure proceeding.
“Balancing all the factors, the Court finds abstention is warranted in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s case is dismissed without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that Okonite's motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 57, is DENIED as to Counts Two and Three but GRANTED as to Count Four”
“ORDERED that the Novartis Defendants' motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 62, is DENIED as to Counts Two and Three, DENIED as to Count Four against Novartis, but GRANTED as to Count Four against PSE&G and NRG.”
“Balancing all the factors, the Court finds abstention is warranted in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's case is dismissed without prejudice... Defendants' motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 5, is GRANTED.”
“Absent a brief, it is unclear under which causes of action Plaintiffs move for default judgment. The Motion is DISMISSED without prejudice, and Plaintiffs may refile the Motion with a brief”
“Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they have suffered a concrete harm sufficient to establish standing, and therefore the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their claims. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
“Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 131, is DENIED”
“the Motion to Decertify the Class, ECF No. 124, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Crippa’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 225, is GRANTED”
“Sotheby’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 241, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Art Lending’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 238, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Art Lending’s Motion in limine, ECF No. 238, is DENIED”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 51, is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce Judgment (ECF No. 10.) is GRANTED;”
“ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for a TRO or a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 4) is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated herein; and it is further”
“ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED;”
On statutory screening, the court dismissed the prisoner's official-capacity claims and speedy-trial claims with prejudice, dismissed the remaining individual-capacity claims without prejudice, and allowed thirty days to amend. The dispositive text states: 'the Complaint shall be dismissed as follows.' This was a court-directed screening disposition, not a ruling on a party motion.
“Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to file an Amended Petition is granted.”
“ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 14-4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;”
“Because the Court denies the amended Petition, it also denies the TRO motion.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 113, as to Count I and DENIES it as to Counts II-IV.”
“It further DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 110, as to Count I and GRANTS it as to Counts II-IV.”
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 | 5 |
| 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 | 22 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 22 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 22 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 54 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 60 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 65 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 59 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 58 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 59 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 33 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 34 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 47 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 86 |
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 Arleo: 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 Arleo with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Arleo, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Arleo's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace