Rachel P. Kovner
How Judge Kovner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
She enforces standing rigorously and dismisses where a plaintiff asserts injuries belonging to non-parties. A plaintiff who never alleges he was personally owed or denied the benefit at issue lacks Article III standing, and a mere hope to 'develop a business relationship' with the real injured parties is not the 'close relationship' required for third-party standing.
“Plaintiff does not allege that he was ever entitled to a refund from DOF, that DOF issued him a refund check, or that DOF canceled a refund check owed to him. ... plaintiff has not plausibly alleged 'a close relationship' to DOF check recipients such that he may assert third-party standing.”
At summary judgment she enforces the forfeiture doctrine: a defendant who pleads a personal-jurisdiction defense in the answer but then litigates the merits (agreeing to a discovery plan, attending conferences) without moving to dismiss forfeits that defense; reviving it only in opposition to summary judgment is too late.
“Defendants have forfeited their jurisdictional defense through their conduct during the litigation of this suit. Defendants asserted the absence of personal jurisdiction in their answer. But they never moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction ... their actions 'during the litigation amount to a legal submission to the jurisdiction' of this Court.”
Procedural preferences
On a Rule 12(b)(6) limitations motion she is exacting about what may be considered: she takes judicial notice of extrinsic public records (government reports, news articles, other complaints) only for their existence, NOT for the truth of their contents, and declines to consider a plaintiff's non-public affidavits. A fact-dependent statute-of-limitations / discovery-rule question that the complaint and judicially-noticeable record do not resolve will not be decided at the pleading stage -- such defenses are for summary judgment after a developed record.
“I therefore take judicial notice only of the fact that government reports, newspaper articles, and a publicly filed complaint contain information related to the oil spill. ... Because neither the allegations in the complaint nor the materials subject to judicial notice establish that plaintiffs' claims are untimely, defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred is denied.”
She manages pro se cases with repeated leniency before dismissal: she will sua sponte extend response deadlines multiple times and give explicit written warnings, but a plaintiff who then goes silent for over a year will have the case dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute -- without prejudice in deference to pro se status.
“The deadline for pro se plaintiff Maria L. Diaz to respond ... was June 19, 2020. The Court sua sponte extended that deadline to May 24, 2021 and then to January 8, 2022. ... But plaintiff still has not done so. ... plaintiff's action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).”
Cautions
She holds plaintiffs to Twombly/Iqbal causal-connection pleading even in deferential-review areas. In a union duty-of-fair-representation case, a 'poor communication' theory is a near-automatic loser (unions have wide latitude and need no member ratification), and any theory must plead a causal link between the union's conduct and the plaintiff's injury -- but a concrete allegation of arbitrary/discriminatory distribution of settlement money can survive.
“plaintiffs' allegation that Local 3 acted arbitrarily in its communications amounts to little more than a 'naked assertion' of arbitrary and bad faith conduct that is insufficient to state a claim for relief. ... plaintiffs have failed to allege any 'causal connection' ... between Local 3's failure to communicate with or seek approval from striking members and their injuries.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 3 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is granted.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied as moot.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Local 3's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the duty of fair representation arising from Local 3's failure to communicate with striking workers is dismissed for failure to state a claim. But plaintiffs' claim ... arising from Local 3's distribution of settlement proceeds to non-Charter retirees may proceed.”
“For the reasons above, defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted.”
EXCLUDED FROM MOTION STATS (order read, no party motion ruled on the merits). Pro se SSA disability appeal dismissed SUA SPONTE under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute: after the Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, plaintiff never responded despite two sua sponte deadline extensions over roughly two years and express warnings. All five Drake/LeSane factors favored dismissal; dismissed without prejudice given pro se status. Illustrates her case-management practice (repeated extensions and notice before a failure-to-prosecute dismissal).
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 408 days (N = 6).
Active (non-senior) E.D.N.Y. district judge sitting in Brooklyn (docket suffix 'RPK'). The sampled civil docket spans a broad general-jurisdiction mix: consumer/financial (fraud/TILA, consumer credit, contract disputes with banks), employment civil rights, ADA Title III public-accommodation suits, mortgage foreclosure, environmental tort, labor (NLRA), and prisoner/other civil rights, plus a criminal docket (incl. United States v. Adams, 1:24-cr-00098). Caseload mix is qualitative this build (10-case sample).