Zahid N. Quraishi
How Judge Quraishi rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Quraishi
Zahid Nisar Quraishi is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Quraishi received a commission on June 22, 2021.
Judge Quraishi's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Quraishi, 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
Attach a searchable PDF proposed order to any ECF filing seeking relief.
“If any relief is being sought, the CM/ECF filing must be accompanied by a proposed order in searchable PDF format.”
Motions
Before specified Rule 12, remand, or venue motions, request a pre-motion conference by a letter of no more than three single-spaced pages.
“before bringing a motion to dismiss, motion for a more definite statement, motion to remand, motion for change of venue, and motion for judgment on the pleadings, a party must submit a letter, not to exceed three (3) single-spaced pages, requesting a pre-motion conference.”
Motions
Obtain leave before filing summary judgment before fact discovery closes.
“Parties may not file an early motion for summary judgment (i.e., prior to the close of fact discovery) without leave from either Judge Quraishi or the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case.”
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 Quraishi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In In re Vascepa Antitrust Litigation, Quraishi denied a motion to dismiss KPH’s assigned-claims theory as premature, finding that the concern about the assignment’s scope was better addressed at class certification.
“Accordingly, the Court will deny this portion of the Motion as premature.”
In Above and Beyond v. Cornelius, Quraishi enforced the parties’ New Jersey forum clause despite objections that the employment agreement was not negotiated and that Arizona would be more convenient. He denied dismissal and transfer to Arizona.
“the forum selection clause in the Employment Agreement, which provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of New Jersey courts and consents to their personal jurisdiction, is both valid and enforceable.”
Procedural preferences
In The ERISA Industry Committee v. Asaro-Angelo, he held at summary judgment that the trade association lacked associational standing because it had not identified a member who suffered or would suffer harm from the challenged law.
“because ERIC has failed to identify any member who will suffer harm, ERIC lacks associational standing... Summers and Third Circuit precedent require the identification of a member who has suffered or will suffer harm in cases brought by an association on behalf of its members.”
In Reddick v. Hicks, Quraishi granted a Rule 59(e) motion after his earlier dismissal order omitted leave to amend, which he had intended to allow. He amended the order to give the plaintiff twenty days to file an amended complaint.
“the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion and amend the July 18, 2023 Order to grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint”
In Salvato v. Harris, he acknowledged an error in the prior Takings analysis but denied reconsideration because correcting the error would not change the disposition of the claim.
“The issue that remains is whether the prior legal error will alter the disposition of this matter. ... Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate that the correction of the Court's legal error would have 'alter[ed] the disposition of this matter.'”
Cautions
In Mosley v. State of New Jersey, Quraishi dismissed several later-numbered counts and remanded counts I through X against the state and other defendants to state court.
“against State of New Jersey are remanded to state court”
In Paramount Residential Mortgage Group, Inc. v. Nationwide Mortgage Bankers, Inc., he dismissed an unfair competition counterclaim with prejudice. The proposed wage and hour theory did not fit the recognized categories of the tort.
“the tort of unfair competition is, thus far, limited to the following three broad categories of behavior: '(1) the passing off of [another's commercial] goods or services; (2) unprivileged imitation; and (3) tortious interference.'”
In Osorio Alcantara's habeas case, Quraishi held that section 1225(b)(2) did not authorize the petitioner's continued mandatory detention after about 25 years of residence following entry without inspection. He granted the petition and rejected a bond hearing under section 1226(a) as the remedy for that detention.
“Petitioner's continued mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2) is therefore unlawful.”
In Arshad’s detention case, Quraishi ordered release after respondents provided no individualized reason to continue detention and identified no evidence that he posed a danger or flight risk.
“Respondents have identified no evidence that Petitioner is a danger or a flight risk, and his pending applications and protection claim give him every incentive to appear.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court will DENY Amarin's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30).”
“The Court will therefore GRANT Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“ERIC lacks Article III standing. The Court will therefore GRANT Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY ERIC's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“ORDERED that the Edison Motion (ECF No. 2) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“ORDERED that the State Motion (ECF No. 20) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“ORDERED that the Middlesex Motion (ECF No. 12) is hereby GRANTED and that all counts against Defendant County of Middlesex are hereby dismissed with prejudice”
“to prevent a manifest injustice, and, in line with the practice set forth in Borelli, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion and amend the July 18, 2023 Order to grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint”
“Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 95) is hereby GRANTED and the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice”
“Third-Party Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 98) is hereby DENIED as moot and the Third-Party Complaint is dismissed without prejudice”
“Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 97) is hereby GRANTED”
“Third-Party Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 102) is hereby GRANTED with respect to sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel and DENIED with respect to sanctions against Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 99) is hereby DENIED”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 42) is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... Summary Judgment is GRANTED on Counts One and Four as to Defendant Trenton Police Department ... DENIED on Counts One and Four as to Defendants Ernest Parrey Jr. [the individual officers] ... and Defendant City of Trenton; Summary Judgment on Counts Two and Three is GRANTED”
“the Court will GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims in Counts Two, Four, and Six, and Pierce doctrine claim in Count Seven ... The Court will DENY Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the remaining claims”
“the Court will DENY Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative Motion to Transfer.”
“the private and public interest factors easily favor New Jersey as a forum for the parties' dispute. The Court will therefore deny the portion of Defendant's motion made under Section 1404(a).”
“Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate that the correction of the Court's legal error would have 'alter[ed] the disposition of this matter.' ... Reconsideration is therefore inappropriate.”
“the Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and DISMISS Defendant's Second Amended Counterclaims (First Claim for Relief) with prejudice.”
“ORDERED that all Counts against the AAA are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; ... Counts II, III, IV, V, VII, XII, XIV, XV against the Individual Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; ... Counts I, VI, VIII, IX-XI, XIII are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“the Court will GRANT Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 24)”
“and DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18).”
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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 38 | 27 |
| Sep 2022 | 103 | 31 |
| Mar 2022 | 111 | 36 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 24 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Quraishi: 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 Quraishi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Quraishi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Quraishi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace