LaShann M. DeArcy Hall
How Judge Hall rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hall
LaShann Moutique DeArcy Hall is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge DeArcy Hall received a commission on November 17, 2015.
Judge Hall's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hall, 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
Contacting chambers
Email chambers when filing an adjournment or extension request, using the required subject line.
“At the time of filing a request for adjournment or extension of time, parties must email Chambers to notify the Court of the request with the subject line ‘ADJOURNMENT REQUEST: [Docket No]’.”
Conferences
Request adjournments or extensions at least two business days before the deadline or appearance absent an emergency.
“Absent an emergency, all requests for adjournments or extensions of time must be made at least two (2) 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 Hall decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Social Security appeal filed four days after the 60-day deadline, she dismissed the complaint as untimely because the plaintiff had not established grounds for equitable tolling.
“absent circumstances necessitating equitable tolling, courts in this circuit have found that a complaint filed even one or two days late must be dismissed as untimely. ... Here, dismissal is warranted due to untimely filing because Plaintiff commenced this proceeding four days after the 60-day period concluded.”
In a negligence case involving overlapping injuries and medical history, she found that a jury could not attribute the claimed complex injuries to the defendant without expert testimony.
“Given the complexity of Plaintiff's overlapping injuries and medical history, the Court finds that there is simply no way a jury could reasonably conclude, without the aid of expert testimony, that these claimed injuries were caused or exacerbated by Defendant's alleged negligence.”
Procedural preferences
In a case where defendants moved for summary judgment without a Rule 56.1 statement, she denied the motion with leave to renew after discovery and emphasized the purpose of the local and individual rules.
“Defendants failed to submit a Statement of Undisputed Facts in support of the summary judgment motion, as required under Rule 56.1 ... The local and individual rules exist for a reason. ... Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied, with leave to renew after discovery.”
In Laredo v. JetBlue, she denied a motion to dismiss an age discrimination claim after the plaintiff alleged that a younger worker replaced him following his termination.
“all that a plaintiff must plausibly allege to survive a motion to dismiss is that 'he would not have been terminated but for his age.' ... Here, Plaintiff pleads facts virtually indistinguishable from those pleaded in Gorzynki. ... Therefore, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a claim for age discrimination against JetBlue.”
In an FLSA case, she held that the $500,000 enterprise-coverage requirement was an element of the claim rather than a jurisdictional condition, and rejected the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion on that ground.
“there is nothing in the text of the FLSA that expresses a congressional intent to make the $500,000 requirement jurisdictional in nature. ... Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), is an inapplicable basis for dismissal on the grounds raised.”
Cautions
In a sanctions dispute, she denied a motion for reconsideration that sought to relitigate an issue already decided, applying the standard that reconsideration requires overlooked controlling law or facts.
“a motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided. ... For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore denied.”
“Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied, with leave to renew after discovery.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant JetBlue's motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”
“Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's request, under the Indemnification Agreement, for summary judgment in the amount of $650,025.86.”
“Based on the foregoing, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is hereby granted, in part, and denied, in part. ... Defendant's motion is granted as to Plaintiff's negligence claim, in part, as it pertains to any claimed injuries that require expert testimony to establish causation. Plaintiff is permitted to pursue the remainder of her negligence claim with respect to any claimed injuries that a jury could find resulted from Defendant's negligent conduct without the aid of an expert.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. To the extent that Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
On statutory screening of a pro se in forma pauperis complaint asserting a Section 1983 claim against a private messaging application, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, holding the private defendant was not a state actor: "Plaintiff's claims are dismissed, without prejudice pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
The court dismissed a pro se disability-discrimination action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff repeatedly failed to file any opposition to a pending motion to dismiss despite multiple extensions and warnings: "For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED."
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 409 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 441 days (N = 3).
- An active Eastern District of New York judge sitting in Brooklyn.
- Her sampled civil docket spans a broad general-jurisdiction mix: civil-rights and fair-housing accommodations (Fair Housing Act, ADA), FLSA and New York Labor Law wage-and-hour cases, insurance and no-fault RICO fraud suits, Social Security disability appeals, trademark, and other statutory actions.
- The caseload mix is qualitative, drawn from a ten-case sample.
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 | 24 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 60 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 24 | 60 |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | 66 |
| Mar 2025 | 8 | 63 |
| Sep 2024 | 6 | 63 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 67 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 73 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 72 |
| Sep 2022 | 5 | 85 |
| Mar 2022 | 15 | 67 |
| Sep 2021 | 15 | 54 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 54 |
| Sep 2020 | 12 | 56 |
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 Hall: 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 Hall with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hall, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hall's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace