Eric R. Komitee
How Judge Komitee rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Komitee
Eric Ross Komitee is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Komitee received a commission on December 5, 2019.
Judge Komitee's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Komitee, 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
Motions
A pre-motion conference is generally unnecessary for motions outside the listed categories.
“Parties are generally not required to request a pre-motion conference before making any other type of motion.”
Motions
Request additional memorandum pages at least five days before the due date, or two days for replies.
“Requests to file memoranda exceeding the page limits set forth herein must be made in writing at least five days prior to the due date, except with respect to reply briefs, in which case the written request must be made in writing at least two days prior to the due date.”
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 Komitee decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Reynolds v. Nazim, he held that an unambiguous general release signed in a prior settlement covered the plaintiff’s already filed civil-rights claims against a covered officer and granted summary judgment.
“Here, the release provision itself is unambiguous.”
In Commercial Lubricants, LLC v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., he granted partial summary judgment on unjust enrichment, implied-covenant, and quantum meruit claims because the parties’ express agreement governed the dispute.
“Plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment (count eight), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (count nine), and quantum meruit (count ten) are dismissed.”
Procedural preferences
In Bank v. Digital Media Solutions, Komitee denied the TCPA dismissal motion because five marketing texts plausibly supported an inference that the defendant used an automated dialing system. He considered the short-code origin, generic content, and defendant-owned links without requiring Bank to rule out alternative explanations at the pleading stage.
“The five text messages that Bank challenges here likewise give rise to a reasonable inference that DMS used an ATDS to contact him. ... while Duguid increases the burden on plaintiffs to prove a TCPA claim, some courts have held that determining whether a defendant used an ATDS is more appropriately determined on a summary judgment motion than a motion to dismiss.”
In Simon, he granted a jointly requested discovery stay while a dismissal motion was pending because that motion raised serious legal questions, could narrow discovery, and the parties identified no unfair prejudice. The order expressly reserved any view on the dismissal motion itself.
“Second, the breadth and burden of discovery may be narrowed substantially following resolution of the motion to dismiss.”
In the Williams preliminary injunction motion, he required a showing that the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over an unserved defendant before granting interim relief; against the other defendants he also assessed likelihood of success.
“Thus, preliminary relief cannot issue against Chase.”
Cautions
In Bank v. Digital Media Solutions, Inc., he denied a pro se attorney’s informal letter request for Rule 11 sanctions because it had not been served on defense counsel with the required notice.
“Bank filed an informal letter motion and provided no notice to defense counsel. The motion is denied.”
In the SB1708 mortgage foreclosure order, he found the lender contractually entitled to fees but denied the fee request without prejudice because it had supplied no time records or other information needed to assess the amount.
“Court denies plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, without prejudice to renew.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Ameritas's motion for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 80, 91, is granted in its entirety.”
“Soni's cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 75, is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment (count eight), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (count nine), and quantum meruit (count ten) are dismissed.”
“For the foregoing reasons, DMS's motion to dismiss is denied.”
“Bank filed an informal letter motion and provided no notice to defense counsel. The motion is denied.”
“Officer Julia Nazim's motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted”
“Motion to Protect Witness Identities. This motion is granted in part, as described below, largely for the reasons set out in the government’s motion and subsequent letters.”
“For the reasons stated above and in the government’s briefing, this motion is granted.”
“The government’s request to file its Section 4 brief ex parte and under seal is granted. However, given the above discussion, the government is directed to file a redacted version of its Section 4 brief on the public docket by June 29, 2026.”
“is granted and such fees are awarded in the amount of”
“attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) is granted”
“Judge Scanlon recommends that the court deny defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Counts I, II and V of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint and grant the Motion to Dismiss with leave to replead as to Counts III and IV of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint. Neither party has filed objections and the time to do so has expired. Accordingly, the Court reviews the recommendations for clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition; accord State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grafman, 968 F. Supp. 2d 480, 481 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). Having reviewed the record, I find no error and therefore adopt the R&R in its entirety.”
“the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. Ogula’s federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Federal Equal Pay Act are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Having reviewed the record, I find no error and therefore adopt the R&R in its entirety. Thus, the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 146 days (N = 15).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 153.5 days (N = 4).
An active Eastern District of New York judge. His civil docket is notably heavy on ADA public-accommodation suits (a high-volume, fast-settling category) and immigration mandamus (visa-delay suits), alongside insurance, Social Security, consumer-credit, bankruptcy appeals, copyright, and commercial contract cases, plus a criminal docket. The caseload mix is qualitative.
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 | 44 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 3 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 4 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 46 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 44 | 46 |
| Sep 2025 | 56 | 50 |
| Mar 2025 | 70 | 68 |
| Sep 2024 | 66 | 54 |
| Mar 2024 | 71 | 58 |
| Sep 2023 | 56 | 70 |
| Mar 2023 | 60 | 68 |
| Sep 2022 | 27 | 50 |
| Mar 2022 | 30 | 48 |
| Sep 2021 | 17 | 51 |
| Mar 2021 | 9 | 47 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 41 |
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 Komitee: 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 Komitee with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Komitee, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Komitee's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace