Joanna Seybert
How Judge Seybert rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Seybert
Joanna Seybert is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Seybert received a commission on November 24, 1993. Judge Seybert assumed senior status on January 13, 2014.
Judge Seybert's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Seybert, 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 required for civil Rule 12 dismissal and Rule 56 summary judgment motions.
“Pre-Motion Conference Requests in Civil Cases are required for dismissal motions pursuant Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and summary judgment motions pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Trial
Fully brief and file motions in limine at least 14 days before jury selection.
“Motions in Limine: All motions addressing any evidentiary or other issues that should be resolved in limine are to be fully briefed and filed at least fourteen (14) days prior to jury selection.”
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 Seybert decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a consumer-protection mislabeling case she credits the ordinary-consumer understanding of a label term over the defendant's technical reading, finding reliance plausibly pled at the 12(b)(6) stage.
“regular consumers are likely to read that the Product is 'Certified Compostable' and to understand that term as meaning the Product is, in fact, capable of being composted either at home or in an appropriate facility. Consequently, Plaintiffs have plausibly pled reasonable and justified reliance upon Defendant's representations.”
In Litrel v. County of Suffolk, she denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion because their explanations and the plaintiff’s responses remained in factual dispute for trial.
“The proffered explanations, and the Defendants’ responses, are in factual dispute and can only be resolved at trial.”
Procedural preferences
In Meehan v. VIPKid, she explained that general or perfunctory objections repeating earlier arguments did not call for de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report.
“objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original papers will not suffice to invoke de novo review.”
In Massaro v. Pitts, she ordered the plaintiff to show cause on diversity jurisdiction before entering a recommended default judgment because the apparent amount in controversy was below $75,000.
“Specifically, it seems that the amount in controversy in this action is well below the $75,000 threshold required for federal diversity jurisdiction.”
Cautions
A request for leave to amend should identify the proposed cure and comply with the local requirement to provide the proposed amended pleading; a bare request after prior notice of deficiencies may be denied.
“Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to properly present or support a request for leave to amend the FAC, the Court, in its discretion, DENIES leave to amend.”
In Stone Equities, LLC v. Town of Brookhaven, she declined to consider factual allegations first raised in opposition to dismissal because they were absent from the complaint.
“Plaintiff did not assert these allegations in the Complaint, and it cannot now 'amend [its] complaint by asserting new facts or theories for the first time in opposition to [a] motion to dismiss.'”
Refusing a Rule 4(d) request to waive service because you think the suit is meritless is not good cause, and misstating the procedural record (e.g. when an EEOC charge was filed) draws a warning about Rule 11.
“Credit Suisse... refused to waive service because it believes Plaintiff's suit is meritless. Of course, this is not a justifiable reason to refuse a waiver request.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the forgoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED with regard to her Title VII and ADEA claims, except for those claims against the individual Defendants, which remain DISMISSED. Additionally, her claims, aside from her claims under Title VII and the ADEA, remain DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen the case.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Nussbaum's motions for reconsideration and remand are GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, Nussbaum v. White, No. 09-CV-2025 is remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk.”
“His motion for a default judgment (Docket Entry 4) is DENIED with leave to renew pending the Court's decision concerning subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry 44) is GRANTED, and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly, in the absence of clear error, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection is OVERRULED, the R&R (ECF No. 54) is ADOPTED in its entirety, and Plaintiff's Remand Motion (ECF No. 46) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART to the extent that Plaintiffs' claims for Breach of Implied Warranty (Count IV), and Unjust Enrichment (Count VI) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, but Plaintiffs' remaining claims survive said motion.”
“For the stated reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' partial Motion to Dismiss the third, fourth, and sixth causes of action in the Complaint (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED in its entirety.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Proposed Intervenor’s Motion (ECF No. 26) is DENIED.”
“Thus, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety, and Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the FAC is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 146) is DENIED in its entirety, but without prejudice to renew;”
“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Objection to the R&R is OVERRULED and Judge Dunst’s R&R is ADOPTED; therefore, the Motion to Compel is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Letter Rogatory Motion is GRANTED, as modified”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 191 days (N = 4).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 296 days (N = 2).
- A senior Eastern District of New York judge sitting in Central Islip on Long Island, still actively assigned despite taking senior status in 2014.
- Her sampled docket is dominated by a substantial criminal docket and the habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. 2255 that pair with it, plus consumer and false-advertising putative class actions and copyright 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 | 1 |
| 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 | 21 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 21 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 25 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 44 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 56 |
| Mar 2024 | 9 | 59 |
| Sep 2023 | 23 | 62 |
| Mar 2023 | 35 | 64 |
| Sep 2022 | 25 | 69 |
| Mar 2022 | 23 | 66 |
| Sep 2021 | 23 | 57 |
| Mar 2021 | 13 | 54 |
| Sep 2020 | 11 | 67 |
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 Seybert: 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 Seybert with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Seybert, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Seybert's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace