Stanley Richard Chesler
How Judge Chesler rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Chesler received a commission on December 4, 2002. Judge Chesler assumed senior status on June 15, 2015.
Judge Chesler's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Chesler, 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
Send courtesy copies only when Judge Chesler 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 Chesler decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In DC Plastic Products v. Westchester Surplus Lines, Chesler ordered appraisal of the disputed loss amount and directed the parties to choose an umpire under their policy. He found that unresolved coverage issues did not require delaying appraisal.
“Here, unlike in Rastelli Bros., the parties disagree as to the amount of loss that Plaintiff suffered.”
Procedural preferences
In StrikeForce Technologies v. WhiteSky, Chesler denied a dismissal motion after declining to decide whether the complaint’s new factual allegations were false. He treated their truth as outside the scope of Rule 12(b)(6) review.
“The truth or falsity of factual allegations is not, however, a question properly before the Court on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
In StrikeForce Technologies v. WhiteSky, Chesler disregarded a new argument about trade secret protection that the defendant first raised in its reply brief. The plaintiff had not had an opportunity to address it in the ordinary briefing.
“New arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief may be disregarded by the Court.”
In K.C.R. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Chesler vacated and remanded because the ALJ did not explain the evidence supporting particular postural limits in the residual functional capacity finding, preventing meaningful review.
“This Court cannot meaningfully review the RFC determination in the absence of these explanations.”
Cautions
In Reina v. Township of Union, Chesler denied reconsideration because the plaintiff repeated points already considered and identified no overlooked matter warranting a different result.
“Plaintiff presents nothing new in these points, nothing that this Court has overlooked: it is all reargument.”
In Reina v. Township of Union, Chesler denied Rule 11 sanctions against the plaintiff despite rejecting her reconsideration arguments. He found the losing arguments did not amount to abuse of the legal process.
“the target is abuse -- the Rule must not be used as an automatic penalty against an attorney or a party advocating the losing side of a dispute.”
In United States v. $22,953 in United States Currency, Chesler struck a forfeiture claimant’s answer and granted summary judgment for the government because only counsel had signed the answer, leaving the claimant without standing under Supplemental Rule G(5).
“Mr. DiMarco’s signature does not suffice”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part for the appointment of an umpire [ECF 89] is hereby GRANTED”
“ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment [ECF 88] is hereby DENIED.”
“the Court will strike Mr. Banda's Answer, and will accordingly grant summary judgment for the Government.”
“the Court will strike Mr. Banda's Answer and enter default judgment in favor of the Government.”
“the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint will be denied.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) (Docket Entry No. 39) is DENIED”
“ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 40) is GRANTED, and the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The motion to dismiss will be granted, and the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff has shown no basis for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration will be denied.”
“There is no basis to find that Plaintiff abused the legal process in seeking reconsideration. The motion for sanctions will be denied.”
“Named Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Dkt. No. 6), is GRANTED in its entirety without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to amend the FPTO (Docket Entry No. 441) is DENIED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend/correct the complaint, (D.E. No. 46), 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 | 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 | 3 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 10 | 17 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 16 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 18 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 17 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 12 |
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 Chesler: 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 Chesler with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Chesler, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Chesler's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace