Carol Bagley Amon
How Judge Amon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Title VII / employment-discrimination complaint she insists on the prima facie pleading elements. A complaint that does not allege membership in a protected class -- and facts giving at least minimal support to an inference that the adverse action was motivated by that protected characteristic -- will be dismissed, even where the adverse action itself (e.g. a demotion) is adequately alleged. The disadvantage alone is not enough; the discriminatory-motive link must be pleaded.
“Although Jeon's demotion from full-time to part-time status may be 'sufficiently disadvantageous to be considered an adverse employment action,' ... Jeon fails to plead facts which 'give plausible support to the conclusion that the demotion occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination' ... because he does not allege that he is a member of a protected class.”
Procedural preferences
She makes heavy, structured use of magistrate judges and adopts unopposed Reports & Recommendations on clear-error review -- a large share of her default judgments and dispositive dismissals come through an adopted R&R. A litigant who wants a different result must file timely, specific objections; absent objection she reviews only for clear error on the face of the record.
“The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court grants the plaintiffs motion for default judgment.”
With pro se litigants she is solicitous but bounded: she grants leave to amend once (with explicit guidance on what the amended pleading must contain), but she will NOT grant further leave after a plaintiff has already amended, and she enforces amendment deadlines. A pro se plaintiff who misses successive deadlines or merely relitigates a dismissal (rather than curing it) will see the case closed.
“The plaintiff has now missed two deadlines to file an amended complaint, despite being in receipt of the Court's order granting him leave to do so. ... the Court ... finds no good reason to give the plaintiff any additional time to file an amended complaint.”
Cautions
Service and procedural-regularity arguments get tested against the docket, not taken at face value. When a pro se plaintiff claimed he was never properly served the motion to dismiss, she pointed to the affidavits of service and to the plaintiff's own filing attaching the moving papers as proof of receipt, and refused to reopen the dismissal. A defective-service or non-receipt theory must be consistent with what the docket actually shows.
“If the plaintiff is suggesting that he was never properly served with the defendant's motion to dismiss (which the Court ultimately granted), this is simply not true. The docket sheet reflects that the defendant attempted to serve the plaintiff with her motion to dismiss numerous times”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Default judgment N = 3 |
Granted: 3 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for temporary restraining order N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For these reasons, the Court grants Queens Rehab's motion to dismiss. Given his pro se status, Jeon is granted leave to amend his complaint within thirty (30) days of this Order.”
“The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the well-reasoned R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Picinich's amended complaint and hereby directs the Clerk of Court to close this case.”
“The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the Court grants the plaintiffs motion for default judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, and in favor of the plaintiff: $141,045.73 in damages and interest, and $11,266 in attorney's fees and costs.”
“The Court has reviewed the thorough and careful R&R and the record and, finding no clear error, adopts Magistrate Judge Levy's recommendation as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, as described above, Plaintiffs motion for default judgment is granted, and Plaintiff is awarded $41,666.35 (consisting of damages, attorney's fees, and costs), plus prejudgment interest calculated at a rate of nine percent per annum from February 4, 2014, to today, and postjudgment interest.”
“The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the well-reasoned R&R as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.”
“The plaintiff's 'motion for a restraining order and stay of proceedings' is denied. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment and close this case.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 538 days (N = 8).
Senior E.D.N.Y. district judge sitting in Brooklyn (suffix 'CBA'), still actively assigned despite senior status (2016). The 2017-2020 sample mixes a substantial federal post-conviction / habeas load (28 U.S.C. 2255 motions and alien-detainee 2241 habeas: Brown v. US, Nafis v. US, Persaud v. US, Rasekhi, Ahmed v. Wolf) with a criminal docket (United States v. Chudhary, United States v. Okpala) and general civil matters -- personal injury (Bianco v. Staples), FLSA labor (Cotton v. NY Minute Movers), and consumer/ADA (Crosson v. Pvolve). The reasoning-layer orders add Title VII/employment discrimination, FLSA/NYLL wage defaults, and commercial fraud. Mix is qualitative this build (case-level metadata only).