Diane Gujarati
How Judge Gujarati rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gujarati
Diane Gujarati is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Gujarati received a commission on September 18, 2020.
Judge Gujarati's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gujarati, 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
Courtesy copy requirements are suspended until further notice.
“Courtesy copy requirements are suspended until further notice.”
Conferences
Request adjournments and extensions at least two business days in advance absent an emergency.
“Absent an emergency, requests for adjournments of court appearances and extensions of filing deadlines shall be made at least two (2) business days prior to the scheduled appearance or filing deadline.”
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 10, 2026).
How Judge Gujarati decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In JGIAP RH 160 LLC v. CRI Holding Corp., she denied leave to amend after the plaintiff had said amendment was unnecessary and never explained how a new pleading would cure the defects.
“While recognizing that the Complaint in this action is the first Complaint and that Rule 15(a)(2) ... provides that leave to amend should be 'freely give[n] ... when justice so requires,' on the record before the Court, the Court does not find that leave to amend is warranted here. ... Nor, to date, has Plaintiff -- even in light of the Manda Defendants' objection ... -- made any attempt to indicate how Plaintiff might cure the deficiencies.”
In Quintero v. Stoupas, she adopted a recommendation granting default judgment on discrimination claims but denying it on several retaliation claims whose allegations did not establish liability.
“Consistent with Judge Mann's R&R, default judgment is denied as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim brought under the NYCHRL (the Seventh Cause of Action) and as to the remaining retaliation claims against Defendant Stoupas (contained in the Third and Fifth Causes of Action).”
Procedural preferences
In Marquez v. Indian Taj, Inc., she vacated a default judgment entered without valid service and dismissed the claims against that defendant without prejudice under Rule 4(m).
“Because dismissal of this action as against Defendant is for lack of service pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such dismissal is without prejudice”
In Lynch v. Department of Education of the City of New York, she reviewed the entire magistrate recommendation de novo after both sides objected, then adopted it.
“In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court has liberally construed Plaintiff's filings in this action. And, in light of the parties' objections to the R&R, the Court has reviewed de novo the entirety of the R&R.”
In Hernandez Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security, she dismissed an unrepresented claimant's appeal without prejudice for failure to prosecute after repeated extensions and warnings went unanswered.
“Accordingly, this case is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders.”
In a consolidated screening order covering eleven pro se cases, she dismissed each frivolous complaint without prejudice but withheld leave to amend after finding that amendment would be futile.
“In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and out of an abundance of caution, dismissal of each of the eleven actions is without prejudice. However, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s pro se status, dismissal of each action is without leave to amend as the Court finds (as to each action) that amendment would be futile.”
Cautions
In Conte v. Tapps Supermarket, Inc., she adopted a recommendation dismissing time-barred claims with prejudice after finding equitable tolling unwarranted and additional grounds for dismissal.
“Judge Wicks properly concluded that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, with equitable tolling not being warranted; that additional grounds as set forth in the R&R also support dismissal of the Amended Complaint; and that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.”
In Looney, Gujarati granted both escalator-negligence defendants summary judgment because the record did not show that they created or knew of the condition said to have caused the fall.
“the record evidence properly before the Court does not permit the conclusion that Macy’s or Thyssenkrupp either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition that Plaintiff claims caused the alleged accident.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 39, is GRANTED and the Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.”
“Accordingly, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 79 and 85, are GRANTED and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, ECF No. 19, is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The Manda Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 99, the Morali Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 102, and the CRI Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 106, are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without leave to amend.”
“The Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 37, is granted in part and denied in part as specified in the R&R and Plaintiff is granted until March 25, 2026 to file an Amended Complaint that is consistent with the R&R.”
“The Motions to Dismiss in the above-captioned actions (No. 20-CV-03868, ECF No. 62; No. 20-CV-06348, ECF No. 48) are GRANTED to the extent that they seek dismissal of the Complaints in the above-captioned actions; the Complaints ... are DISMISSED without prejudice”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is granted to the extent set forth in Judge Mann's R&R ... in the amount of $228,933.33 ... Consistent with Judge Mann's R&R, default judgment is denied as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim brought under the NYCHRL (the Seventh Cause of Action) and as to the remaining retaliation claims against Defendant Stoupas”
This order rules on no party motion's merits. A pro se SSA disability appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Although the Commissioner had filed a 12(b)(6) motion, the court did not rule on that motion's merits; it dismissed under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff failed to respond to the motion despite repeated sua sponte deadline extensions and two orders to show cause, and took no action on the case for nearly eighteen months. Dismissed without prejudice. Illustrates her pro se case-management practice (the same five-factor Rule 41(b) analysis she applied in Silver).
“For the reasons set forth above, the Motion, ECF No. 63, is GRANTED; the Clerk of Court is directed to vacate the default judgment entered against Defendant Kirpal Singh”
“the Petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED as time-barred.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 29, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 24, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“the Motion, filed at ECF No. 118 in Case No. 19-CV- 04946 and at ECF No. 76 in Case No. 22-CV-03588, is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 223 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 289 days (N = 3).
- An active Eastern District of New York judge sitting in Brooklyn.
- The most recent sample (spring 2026) is dominated by a surge of alien-detainee habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. 2241, alongside FLSA labor cases, a criminal docket (e.g. United States v. Berko, United States v. Gertsik), and general civil-rights matters.
- An earlier 2020-2022 window shows Social Security disability appeals, state-prisoner and general habeas, motor-vehicle tort, and FLSA cases.
- The mix is qualitative, drawn from case-level records.
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 | 26 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 26 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 30 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 37 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 47 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 41 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 58 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 45 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 59 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 57 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 45 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 44 |
| 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 Eastern District of New York, not for Judge Gujarati: 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 | 7,392 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,485 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 5,022 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 835 | 13.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 50 | 49.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 7,392 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,879 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 7,746 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 7,588 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,709 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,062 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 6,858 | 8.1 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 Gujarati with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gujarati, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gujarati's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace