Rachel P. Kovner
How Judge Kovner rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kovner
Rachel Peter Kovner is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Kovner received a commission on October 17, 2019.
Judge Kovner's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kovner, 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
No pre-motion conference is required in the listed appeal, habeas, or pro se cases.
“Pre-motion conferences are not required in bankruptcy appeals, social security appeals, habeas cases, or cases in which one or more parties are proceeding pro se.”
Conferences
Request an appearance adjournment or filing extension at least two working days in advance absent an emergency.
“Absent an emergency, requests for adjournments of court appearances and extensions of filing deadlines shall be made at least two working days prior to the scheduled appearance or filing deadline.”
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 Kovner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a refund-check dispute, she dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiff did not allege that he was owed a refund or had a close relationship with the check recipients whose rights he sought to assert.
“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.”
In a summary-judgment case, she found that defendants had forfeited their personal-jurisdiction defense by litigating the merits after raising it in their answer without moving to dismiss on that ground.
“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 limitations motion, she noticed public materials only for their existence and denied dismissal because neither the complaint nor the judicially noticeable materials established that the claims were untimely.
“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.”
In a pro se case, she extended the plaintiff’s response deadline twice, then dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff still failed to respond.
“The Court sua sponte extended that deadline to May 24, 2021 and then to January 8, 2022. See Order dated Apr. 23, 2021; Order dated Nov. 8, 2021. But plaintiff still has not done so.”
In one employment summary judgment, the court declined to consider a hostile-work-environment claim first raised in the opposition brief after two amended complaints. A party seeking to add a theory should plead it before the summary judgment stage.
“The Court declines to consider this claim because a brief in opposition to summary judgment”
Cautions
In a union duty-of-fair-representation case, she found allegations of poor communication insufficient to plead arbitrary or bad-faith conduct or a causal link to the plaintiffs’ injuries.
“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.”
In one civil foreign-account penalty case, the court upheld liability but required the tax agency to recalculate a penalty it had rounded above the statutory maximum. The statutory cap controlled the amount.
“cite any statutory authorization allowing it to round upward.”
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.”
This order rules on no party motion's merits. A pro se SSA disability appeal was 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).
“Plaintiffs’ action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denies without prejudice plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, motions for injunctive relief, and motion for joinder.”
“Because defendants have not filed an answer or received a reasonable opportunity to complete discovery, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is premature.”
“Plaintiff’s motions for a permanent injunction are denied without prejudice to renewal if plaintiff prevails on the merits of his claims.”
“Plaintiff’s claims against defendant U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate defendant’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. #7”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Huang’s motion to dismiss based on insufficient service of process is granted. The claims against him are accordingly dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, to the extent Mr. Lynch sought to remove the state court proceeding, Palm Avenue’s motion to remand is granted and the action is remanded to the District Court of Nassau County.”
“Because Mr. Lynch has not filed an action over which this Court has jurisdiction, Mr. Lynch is not entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 408 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 299 days (N = 5).
- An active Eastern District of New York judge sitting in Brooklyn.
- Her sampled civil docket spans a broad general-jurisdiction mix: consumer and financial cases (fraud and truth-in-lending, consumer credit, bank contract disputes), employment civil rights, ADA public-accommodation suits, mortgage foreclosure, environmental tort, labor, and prisoner and other civil-rights matters, alongside a criminal docket.
- 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 | 9 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 4 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 37 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 9 | 37 |
| Sep 2025 | 34 | 43 |
| Mar 2025 | 12 | 47 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 47 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 49 |
| Sep 2023 | 9 | 54 |
| Mar 2023 | 7 | 61 |
| Sep 2022 | 11 | 61 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 65 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 56 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 47 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 39 |
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 Kovner: 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 Kovner with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kovner, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kovner's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace