Steven M. Gold
How Judge Gold rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Gold no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Gold
Steven M. Gold served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Eastern District of New York from 1993 until his retirement in 2021. He also served as the district’s chief magistrate judge. His judicial work included pretrial disputes, criminal duties, and reports and recommendations on referred matters.
How Judge Gold decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd. v. Star Mark Management, Inc., Judge Gold based his discovery rulings on prior court orders and counsel's representations at conferences, citing the many earlier discovery applications and conferences.
“the large number of previous discovery applications and conferences convinces me not to do so, but instead to base my rulings upon prior court orders and the representations of counsel made at prior conferences.”
Procedural preferences
In Estrella v. Coqui Check Cashing, Inc., he recommended denying a motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal after amendment because it relied on untested facts and pleading defects the plaintiffs could likely correct.
“it appears that defendants’ motion is based primarily upon factual assertions that have not been tested in discovery and pleading deficiencies that plaintiffs are likely to be able to correct if granted leave to amend.”
Cautions
In the Tutis Capital default-judgment dispute, he recommended denying claims tied to transactions for which Tutis lacked assignments; District Judge Amon adopted the recommendation.
“Because Tutis did not obtain assignments of claims from its clients ‘JA’ or ‘Yap,’ Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment is denied with respect to the claims in 15-cv-836, and the claims based on the transaction involving ‘JA’ in 15-cv-835.”
In Koon Chun Hing Kee Soy & Sauce Factory, Ltd. v. Star Mark Management, Inc., he denied sanctions after the plaintiff lost one discovery motion and the defendants had opposed only one part of the other.
“Because plaintiff did not prevail on the first motion, and because defendants opposed only one aspect of the relief sought by plaintiff in connection with the second motion, plaintiff’s application for sanctions is denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“defendants' motion to modify the subpoena to eliminate the sixth category of documents listed therein is granted.”
“Because plaintiff did not prevail on the first motion, and because defendants opposed only one aspect of the relief sought by plaintiff in connection with the second motion, plaintiff's application for sanctions is denied.”
“I respectfully recommend that defendants' motion be denied without prejudice to renewal after plaintiffs file their second amended complaint. In short, it appears that defendants' motion is based primarily upon factual assertions that have not been tested in discovery and pleading deficiencies that plaintiffs are likely to be able to correct if granted leave to amend.”
“Having reviewed de novo those parts of the R&R to which Minima has objected, the Court now adopts the R&R as the Decision and Order of this Court. Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“On September 24, 2013, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Steven Gold's Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending default judgments be entered against eighteen defaulting defendants.”
“this Court grants plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment against Smimov, Bluvstein and Hsu. The Clerk of Court is directed close this case and to enter judgment against Bluvstein, Smimov, and Hsu, jointly and severally, in the amounts indicated below for treble damages under RICO”
“the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and judgment is entered against the Villeroy, Dickey, and Turner Defendants jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,074,990. Because Tutis did not obtain assignments of claims from its clients ‘JA’ or ‘Yap,’ Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment is denied with respect to the claims in 15-cv-836, and the claims based on the transaction involving ‘JA’ in 15-cv-835.”
“the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Defendant, and awards Plaintiff $1,000 in statutory damages under the Copyright Act, $5,000 in statutory damages under the DMCA, $595 in attorney's fees, and $400 in costs.”
“I adopt Chief Judge Gold's recommendations. Accordingly, plaintiff is awarded a judgment against Whiffen in the total amount of $160,058.55, which consists of unpaid employee benefit plan contributions of $106,102.34 ... Plaintiff's claims against Romanowicz are dismissed.”
“this Court affirms and adopts the R&R of Judge Gold in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is granted and opt-in plaintiff Sharif Butt's claims are dismissed without prejudice to refile.”
“the Court adopts Judge Gold's recommendations, and (1) grants EA's motion to compel arbitration; (2) stays this action pending arbitration pursuant to Section 3 of the FAA”
“denies EA's motion to transfer venue without prejudice to renewal if there is to be further litigation following arbitration.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that default judgment be entered against defendant Eladio Gonzalez d/b/a/ Sin Fronteras Restaurant in the total amount of $4120, comprised of $1200 in statutory damages, $2400 in enhanced damages, and $520 in costs. The Court denies plaintiff's application for prejudgment interest”
“the Court adopts the R&R without de novo review and grants Empire's Motion for Default Judgment.”
“(2) grants the motions to dismiss; (3) dismisses Plaintiffs' RICO claims with prejudice; (4) dismisses Plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice; and (5) declines to grant Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint.”
“the Court (1) denies Plaintiffs' motions to amend the caption and the Amended Complaint and request for a preliminary injunction”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- His as-assigned sample is dominated by magistrate criminal-duty matters and electronic-evidence applications (multiple cell-phone search-warrant applications and a pen-register and trap-and-trace order).
- This grounds his criminal-duty and surveillance docket but yields no civil motion-outcome or latency data; obtaining groundable motion timelines for this judge would require pulling specific older terminated civil dockets located through the referring district judge.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Gold was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2020.
| 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 | 2 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Gold no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.