Nina Gershon
How Judge Gershon rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gershon
Nina Gershon is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Gershon received a commission on August 1, 1996. Judge Gershon assumed senior status on October 16, 2008.
Judge Gershon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gershon, 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
Serve and file a pre-motion conference letter of no more than three pages.
“To arrange a pre-motion conference, the moving party shall serve and file a letter not to exceed three (3) pages in length setting forth the basis for the anticipated motion.”
Motions
Set a briefing schedule for court approval.
“Subject to court approval, the parties are to set up their own briefing schedule.”
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 Gershon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A concrete factual allegation of discriminatory intent (not just labels) survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion even after Twombly: a specific, quoted discriminatory statement attributed to the defendant gives rise to a plausible inference of bias.
“The allegation in the amended complaint that defendants sent a reference letter to a prospective employer that identified plaintiff as a 'black incompetent resident physician' and stated that 'black doctors perform inferiorly' would, if true, clearly give rise to a plausible inference that defendants' alleged actions were motivated by racial bias.”
In an unopposed default-judgment case, she granted relief against the corporate defendant under the Federal Communications Act but denied it against the individual defendant and dismissed the complaint as to him.
“plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion is granted with respect to defendant El Sonador Cafe Restaurant Inc.'s ... liability under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 605, and denied with respect to defendant Jose A. Bernal. The complaint is dismissed as to Mr. Bernal.”
Procedural preferences
In a case where the City defendants gave Rule 56 notice and both sides submitted material beyond the pleadings, she treated their motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment.
“Because the City Defendants provided plaintiff notice pursuant to Rule 56, and because both parties have submitted extrinsic material in support of their arguments, the court will treat the City Defendants' motion as a motion for summary judgment.”
In Bascom v. Fried, Gershon declined to convert a dismissal motion into summary judgment on the basis of counsel's declaration alone, leaving the defendants free to file a supported Rule 56 motion with affidavits from people with firsthand knowledge.
“this declaration by counsel is an insufficient basis on which this court could convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Denial of the motion to dismiss is, of course, without prejudice to defendants filing a properly supported motion for summary judgment including sworn affidavits of individuals with personal knowledge of the facts pertinent to their Rule 56 motion.”
In this case, she reviewed an unopposed report and recommendation for plain error, found none, and adopted its conclusions in full.
“No objections having been filed, the court has reviewed the R&R for plain error, and finds none. Judge Levy's well considered conclusions are adopted in their entirety.”
In a Daubert dispute over Mr. Berryhill’s opinion, she held that the defendants’ objections about his treatment of individual wells went to the weight of his testimony rather than its admissibility.
“Given that opinion, Defendants' contentions that Mr. Berryhill did not adequately consider the individualized circumstances of each well before finding Suffolk's AOP/GAC treatment plan reasonable go to the weight of Mr. Berryhill's testimony and not its admissibility under Daubert.”
The boundary is an undisclosed analytical gap: she excluded well-by-well expert conclusions when the report supplied data and bottom-line answers but no method connecting them, and she would not allow the experts to provide that missing explanation for the first time at trial.
“Exclusion is required because the link, if any between those inputs and the expert’s conclusions is written in invisible ink.”
In a RICO pleading against many defendants, she dismissed the federal claims for missing allegations of direct causation, an association-in-fact enterprise, and agreement to participate. She required any later amendment request to attach a proposed, redlined complaint.
“But the court agrees with Defendants that there are three fundamental deficiencies in the FAC’s RICO and RICO conspiracy claims: 1) the lack of allegations establishing proximate causation under RICO, 2) the failure to allege facts to establish an association-in-fact enterprise; and 3) the failure to allege facts from which one can infer that Defendants agreed to engage in conduct constituting a RICO violation.”
Cautions
In a reconsideration ruling, she denied the plaintiff’s motion because it repeated arguments already rejected and identified no overlooked matters or controlling decisions.
“Plaintiff does not set forth any matters or controlling decisions that were overlooked by the court; instead, he reiterates arguments he made previously, which were considered by the court and rejected. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied.”
On summary judgment you cannot defeat a well-documented motion with conclusory assertions; the non-movant must point to specific facts (here, specifically identify the falsity in a warrant affidavit).
“In the face of plaintiff's conclusory allegations of falsity, defendants were not required to go beyond the supporting materials. ... plaintiff's conclusory statement that defendants' affidavits were false is insufficient to raise an issue of material fact about whether there was probable cause to search.”
She resolves subject-matter jurisdiction first: a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge is addressed before the merits, and claims outside the court's statutory/constitutional power are dismissed regardless of how they are pled.
“Because subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold matter, the court must address defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion first.”
An organizational plaintiff that repeatedly fails to retain required counsel, misses response deadlines, and stops communicating can face dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b), particularly after repeated warnings and a finding that lesser measures are impractical.
“Plaintiff's failure to prosecute over the last three months demonstrates that it has abandoned the action. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) is also granted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the government's motion for summary judgment is granted and this action seeking the return of Rosario's property is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case.”
“Since plaintiff fails to set forth any matters or decisions not taken into account by the court's February 24, 2006 order, the motion for reconsideration is denied. See Local Civil Rule 6.3.”
“Plaintiff does not set forth any matters or controlling decisions that were overlooked by the court; instead, he reiterates arguments he made previously, which were considered by the court and rejected. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied.”
“For the reasons set forth above, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and close this case.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.”
“Their motion for sanctions and their request for an order barring plaintiff from filing any further pleadings or motions against them without leave of court are also therefore denied.”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.”
“Finally, as the court has dismissed all of plaintiff's claims, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment-held in abeyance pending resolution of defendants' motions-is dismissed as moot.”
“As recommended by Judge Tiscione, plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff[']s motion is granted with respect to defendant Johnny's Restaurant, Bar & Lounge, Inc.'s ... liability under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 605, and denied with respect to defendant Savatri Lall. The complaint is dismissed as to Ms. Lall.”
“As recommended by Judge Scanlon, plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion is granted with respect to defendant El Sonador Cafe Restaurant Inc.'s (‘El Sonador's’) liability under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 605, and denied with respect to defendant Jose A. Bernal. The complaint is dismissed as to Mr. Bernal.”
“On November 1, 2019, Judge Levy issued a Report and Recommendation (‘R&R’) recommending that plaintiff's motion be granted. No objections having been filed, the court has reviewed the R&R for plain error, and finds none. ... The Clerk of Court is directed to enter default judgment against defendant Solar Energy Initiatives, Inc.”
Adopted Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom's R&R recommending dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(c) for plaintiff's failure to appear at two scheduled initial conferences and to comply with a show-cause order. This is a non-motion disposition; no party motion was ruled on.
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss the FAC’s RICO and RICO conspiracy claims are granted without prejudice to Plaintiffs moving for leave to amend these two claims in an attempt to cure the deficiencies identified here.”
“the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment on her malicious prosecution claim is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment to plaintiff of $158,401.99 in economic damages and $100,000.00 in emotional distress damages”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 311 days (N = 7).
- A senior Eastern District of New York judge sitting in Brooklyn, still actively assigned despite taking senior status in 2008.
- Her sampled civil docket skews toward ADA public-accommodation access suits that terminate quickly by settlement, Federal Tort Claims Act and pro se suits against the United States (including a habeas petition tied to her own Herald Square subway-bombing trial), commercial and insurance disputes, environmental matters, antitrust and miscellaneous subpoena dockets, and consumer-finance and product-liability suits.
- 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 | 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 | 37 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 17 | 37 |
| Sep 2025 | 33 | 41 |
| Mar 2025 | 38 | 41 |
| Sep 2024 | 38 | 43 |
| Mar 2024 | 22 | 43 |
| Sep 2023 | 21 | 41 |
| Mar 2023 | 14 | 58 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 57 |
| Mar 2022 | 12 | 52 |
| Sep 2021 | 11 | 32 |
| Mar 2021 | 19 | 30 |
| Sep 2020 | 22 | 15 |
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 Gershon: 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 Gershon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gershon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gershon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace