Hector Gonzalez
How Judge Gonzalez rules, drawn from 44 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gonzalez
Hector Gonzalez is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Gonzalez received a commission on April 18, 2022.
Judge Gonzalez's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gonzalez, 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
Mark courtesy copies and include the ECF stamp and docket number.
“All courtesy copies must be clearly marked ‘Courtesy Copy,’ and any documents that have been filed under seal must also be marked as ‘SEALED.’ All courtesy copies must include the stamp generated when a document is filed via ECF (including the document number as listed on the docket).”
Conferences
Absent an emergency or a different rule, request adjournments and extensions at least three business days before the deadline or appearance.
“Absent an emergency, and unless otherwise provided for by these Individual Practices, all requests for adjournments or extensions of time must be made at least three (3) business days prior to a scheduled deadline or appearance.”
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 Gonzalez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In LaRubInt Corp. v. Joint Stock Company Studio Soyuzmultfilm, he found that a party had ratified the licensing agreements by accepting their benefits and could not selectively challenge their validity on summary judgment.
“SMF ratified the Licensing Agreements and is precluded from challenging their validity. Moreover, SMF cannot selectively seek to enforce portions of the Licensing Agreements when doing so benefits it, while also challenging the validity of those agreements when it does not.”
In Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. County of Suffolk, he declined to resolve the individual defendants’ qualified immunity defense on a dismissal motion because the necessary facts required summary judgment or trial.
“The individual Defendants' argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity must also await summary judgment or trial. ... advancing qualified immunity as grounds for a motion to dismiss is almost always a procedural mismatch.”
Procedural preferences
In Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. County of Suffolk, he decided the proposed dismissal motion from the parties’ detailed pre motion letters and denied the requested dismissal without further briefing.
“The Court finds it appropriate to decide Defendants' proposed motion to dismiss based solely on the parties' pre-motion letters because the letters describe the parties' arguments in sufficient detail, with accompanying citations to case law, and the Court is denying Defendants' request to dismiss Plaintiff's claims rather than disposing of any party's claims.”
In Peleus Insurance Company v. The Hallet, LLC, he dismissed declaratory judgment counterclaims that mirrored the insurer’s existing claims and added no issue to the dispute.
“courts will dismiss a declaratory judgment [claim] if it is the mirror image of a claim asserted in the complaint. ... resolution of Peleus's claims will necessarily settle the identical issues raised in the counterclaims, which do not broaden the scope of the dispute.”
In an August 2026 immigration detention decision, the court treated the absence of a recorded individual custody determination as a due process defect and ordered the petitioner released. The custody record and the asserted statutory basis of detention mattered to the result.
“Because there is no record of Petitioner receiving the individual custody determination that Section 1226(a) requires, the Court concludes that he is being detained in violation of his rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment.”
Cautions
In Peleus Insurance Company v. The Hallet, LLC, he directed both sides to stop filing excessive papers in their coverage dispute after finding that their litigation strategy wasted court resources.
“The parties are directed to cease their scorched-earth approach to this standard coverage dispute before both this Court and Magistrate Judge Kuo. Their file-now-and-figure-it-out-later strategy is needlessly bloating the docket and wasting Court resources.”
In Perevoznikov v. United States, he dismissed an FTCA medical malpractice claim because boilerplate allegations did not plausibly establish a standard of care or a causal link to the alleged injury.
“boilerplate statements that [the] defendant[s] deviated from the acceptable standards of medical care, and that those acts were the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, are not sufficient to state a claim.”
In a separate detention case, the court denied relief where an independent ground supported probable cause, the notice to appear was served at arrest, and immigration officers had made an individual custody determination. The order did not decide whether the petitioner could obtain a later bond hearing.
“The Court also concludes that Petitioner’s initial custody determination was valid.”
In a civil-rights suit about alleged suppression of a witness’s detention before trial, he held that allegations of coercion without fabricated testimony did not state the asserted Brady claim. He dismissed the related federal claims and declined jurisdiction over the state claim.
“However, two elements—both coercion and fabrication—are necessary for Plaintiff’s Brady claim to survive a motion to dismiss.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Peleus's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 56, is granted, and The Hallet's motion to strike, ECF No. 59, is denied.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court takes Defendants' pre-motion letter under consideration as Defendants' proposed motion to dismiss and DENIES Defendants' motion.”
“The Court also DENIES Defendants' request to stay discovery. ECF No. 31. The parties shall continue conducting discovery in accordance with the deadlines in the Court's scheduling order.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to liability on its breach of contract claims under the three Licensing Agreements is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to liability on its unjust enrichment claim is DENIED and Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is dismissed.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint in full.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 41, is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with prejudice.”
“As a result, only one option remains: the Court dismisses the petition without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion to stay is DENIED and his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES with prejudice the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff's complaint in full.”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court exercises its discretion to deny PHEAA's motion for leave to appeal, see ECF No. 1, and PHEAA's appeal is dismissed.”
“Since the Court has dismissed PHEAA's underlying appeal, it denies ‘as moot’ PHEAA's motion for a stay of its discovery obligations pending the appeal.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 87 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 309 days (N = 1).
- An active Eastern District of New York judge sitting in Brooklyn, on the bench since April 2022.
- The most recent sample (spring 2026) is dominated by a surge of alien-detainee habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. 2241, alongside Social Security disability appeals, immigration mandamus, and copyright cases.
- A 2023 window shows a similar general-jurisdiction trial mix: immigration and USCIS mandamus (Pan, Chen, Li v. Mayorkas), prisoner civil rights (Carter, Wilburn), copyright (Wareka v. Bare Skin; Strike 3 Holdings), employment civil rights (Byam v. NYC DOE), Federal Tort Claims Act (Mallay), and criminal matters (United States v. Fernandez).
- 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 | 19 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 24 |
| Mar 2025 | 8 | 27 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 33 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 35 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 34 |
| Mar 2023 | 10 | 40 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 45 |
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 Gonzalez: 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 Gonzalez with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gonzalez, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gonzalez's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace