Dora Lizette Irizarry
How Judge Irizarry rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Irizarry
Dora L. Irizarry is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Irizarry received a commission on July 8, 2004. Judge Irizarry assumed senior status on January 26, 2020.
Judge Irizarry's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Irizarry, 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.
- Practices and Rules ↗
- Standard Requirements for Criminal Cases (Irizarry) ↗
- Pretrial Order (Irizarry) ↗
Key rules
Filing
In criminal cases, file the defendant’s sentencing submission at least ten business days before sentencing.
“Defendant’s submission must be filed at least ten business days in advance of sentencing.”
Motions
For motions other than the stated exceptions, wait until full briefing to file papers or send courtesy copies.
“As to all other motions, no motion papers are to be filed via ECF nor courtesy copies provided to chambers until the motion has been briefed fully.”
Conferences
Request a pretrial conference adjournment at least three business days in advance absent an emergency.
“Absent an emergency, requests for adjournments of the pretrial conference must be made at least three (3) business days prior to the scheduled appearance and in accordance with Rule II(D) above.”
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 Irizarry decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In complex no-fault insurance fraud litigation, she found irreparable harm where parallel arbitrations or collection suits could produce inconsistent or preclusive rulings before the federal RICO record was developed. Serious merits questions, the balance of hardships, and the public interest in preventing insurance fraud supported staying existing proceedings and barring new ones.
“Plaintiffs are at risk of irreparable harm should any of these arbitrations or potential state claims reach the merits of the fraud allegations, or other allegations, which could have a preclusive effect on this Court’s ability to provide relief.”
In Young v. United Parcel Service General Services Co., she dismissed discrimination claims under New York’s election-of-remedies doctrine because the plaintiff had already presented the same conduct to the NYSDHR and had not sought review of its determination.
“Accordingly, he is barred from pursuing his claims in this Court or the courts of the State of New York by the election of remedies doctrine.”
In Chi Iota Colony of Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity v. City University of New York, she dismissed state-law claims against state officials under the Eleventh Amendment because they sought compliance with state law.
“As claims five through seven ‘seek[] solely to secure compliance with state law by a state official,’ in contrast to claims that ‘seek[] to secure compliance with federal law by a state official,’ they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.”
Procedural preferences
In Dollar Phone Corp. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., she reviewed objections to a magistrate judge’s report for clear error because they repeated the arguments and authorities in the original summary judgment brief.
“Notably, Dollar Phone’s objections raise the same arguments supported by the same legal authority it submitted in its original summary judgment brief. Thus, the Court conducted a clear error review of the R & R.”
In Redhead v. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, she denied certification for an interlocutory appeal of a ministerial-exception ruling because the defendant offered no conflicting legal authority and an immediate appeal would not materially advance the case.
“Here, defendant has not cited any conflicting legal authority to persuade the court that doubt exists, much less substantial doubt, as to whether the ministerial exception applies”
In United States ex rel. Youssef v. Tishman Construction Corp., she declined to consider a new theory raised only in objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and refused a leave to amend request that had not been made to the magistrate judge.
“It is well established that '[n]ew arguments and factual assertions cannot properly be raised for the first time in objections to the [R & R], and indeed may not be deemed objections at all.' ... Relator could have requested leave to amend before the magistrate judge, but did not do so. Accordingly, this Court will not consider his request now.”
Cautions
In Zhang v. Wolf, she denied a jurisdictional challenge but dismissed the asylum-delay action for failure to state a claim, finding that the complaint did not plead a protected interest or sufficient facts about the claimed health harm.
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for denial of due process.”
In a reviewed suppression case, the court rejected inevitable discovery of cellphone evidence obtained after an unlawful home entry where officers had not shown a plan to seek a home search warrant. A later cellphone warrant did not cure the original seizure.
“Moreover, there is no indication that the Government intended to apply for a warrant to search the Residence.”
In Roth v. Drahi, the court denied leave to amend after dismissing the derivative complaint because the alleged theory of liability could not be cured by new pleading.
“deficient theory of liability cannot be cured.”
In an immigration delay action, she denied a request to supplement the complaint after the government resumed processing and the original action became moot. The proposed new claims arose from a later executive order and could not revive the original jurisdiction.
“As in Fox, here, there is nothing to cure because this action is moot.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice and plaintiff's motion for remand is DENIED.”
“The court is satisfied that the amount in controversy in the instant action exceeds $75,000 and the removal was proper. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for remand is denied.”
“As claims five through seven 'seek[] solely to secure compliance with state law by a state official,' in contrast to claims that 'seek[] to secure compliance with federal law by a state official,' they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. ... Therefore, defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' state law claims is granted.”
“In light of the federal policy against piecemeal or premature appellate review and given that an order denying a motion for summary judgment is ordinarily not appealable, defendant's motion requesting certification of this court's order dated July 26, 2006 so that defendant may seek an interlocutory appeal is denied.”
“Upon due consideration, and after finding no clear error, the R & R is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, St. Paul's motion for summary judgment is granted and Dollar Phone's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.”
“Accordingly, St. Paul's motion for summary judgment is granted and Dollar Phone's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. The complaint is dismissed in its entirety.”
“For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is denied. Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded a judgment of foreclosure against the Subject Property located in Kings County known as 135 Ross Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11211, and default interest pursuant to the Mortgage and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.”
“For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is denied.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied and the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted. This action is dismissed in its entirety.”
“In the instant motions, Spitz, the Plan and the Trust move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Second Claim for Relief... while Schultz, Zucker and McDonough move, also pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Third, Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief... For the reasons set forth below, the motions are denied.”
“ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and plaintiff's action is summarily dismissed.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Local 79's motion to dismiss is granted. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Order no later than April 28, 2014.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that all of Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Montreal Convention and Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is granted in its entirety.”
“Accordingly, Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Accordingly, the court denies Defendant's motion seeking to disqualify this judge from presiding over the instant action.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 218 days (N = 7).
- Judge Irizarry is a senior district judge in Brooklyn who remains actively assigned.
- A 2026 sample is dominated by FLSA wage-and-hour suits and a substantial criminal docket, alongside ADA Title III access cases and contract matters.
- Earlier cases include consumer-credit disputes, immigration actions, medical-malpractice and Federal Tort Claims Act suits, and criminal trials, including the 2010-2011 JFK Airport terror-plot prosecution.
- The caseload mix is qualitative and 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 | 17 |
| 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 | 23 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 17 | 23 |
| Sep 2025 | 18 | 20 |
| Mar 2025 | 8 | 19 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 22 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 24 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 32 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 35 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 35 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 34 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 28 |
| Mar 2021 | 16 | 36 |
| Sep 2020 | 16 | 42 |
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 Irizarry: 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 Irizarry with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Irizarry, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Irizarry's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace