William Francis Kuntz II
How Judge Kuntz rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kuntz
William Francis Kuntz, II is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Kuntz received a commission on October 4, 2011. Judge Kuntz assumed senior status on January 1, 2022.
Judge Kuntz's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kuntz, 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 request a pre-motion conference, the moving party shall serve on all other parties and electronically file a letter not to exceed three pages in length stating the basis for the anticipated motion.”
Conferences
Request an appearance adjournment in writing at least 48 hours in advance.
“A request for an adjournment of a court appearance shall be made in writing at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the appearance and in the form applicable to a request for an extension of time.”
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 Kuntz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Marinello v. Commissioner of Social Security, Kuntz affirmed the benefits denial after finding that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Packer's opinion in assessing whether other jobs were available.
“As such, Plaintiff cannot argue that the ALJ failed to ‘adduce evidence that [Plaintiff] can perform a significant number of other jobs’ because the ALJ properly considered the opinion of Dr. Packer.”
In AFS/IBEX v. AEGIS Managing Agency, he held that the insurance policy's cancellation clause, rather than its payment clause, governed an unearned-premium refund after the insured cancelled the policy; he granted the insured summary judgment.
“The plain, unambiguous language of the contract makes clear the Cancellation Clause, not the Payment Clause, governs the parties' rights to the premiums. ... A plain reading of the Payment Clause, taken in the context of the entire agreement, makes clear that it only applies where the insured has failed to pay the entirety of the premiums owed within thirty days of the inception of the agreement.”
Procedural preferences
In a pro se case, he dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff failed to respond to a dispositive motion and ignored a later order directing a response.
“By failing to respond to Defendant's motion, thereby contravening the Court's February 16, 2018 Order, and further failing to comply with the Court's May 17, 2019 Order directing her to file her response, Plaintiff has failed to pursue her claim. ... the above-captioned action is hereby DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b).”
In a Rule 12(f) dispute, he denied a motion to strike filed more than two months after the answer where the defendant had not explained any prejudice from the challenged allegations.
“Defendant's Motion to Strike was filed on March 30, 2022, more than two months after Defendant filed an Answer on January 10, 2022. ... Defendant has not explained how it would be prejudiced by their inclusion. ... the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Strike, as well.”
In an unopposed discovery report and recommendation, he found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, and ordered production of responsive nonprivileged documents and a categorical privilege log.
“Finding no such error here, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. ... The Court ORDERS Hom to provide any non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiff's document requests and a categorical privilege log”
Cautions
In Joseph v. Frontier Airlines, he denied partial dismissal of prospective-relief claims because alleged lifetime travel bans against some plaintiffs supplied an ongoing future injury.
“Despite the lack of allegations demonstrating Frontier's explicit discriminatory policies, or Plaintiffs' imminent travel plans, the alleged lifetime ban in place against some Plaintiffs makes the threat of future, similar harm against those individuals certain should they ever attempt to patronize Frontier again. ... A lifetime ban is inherently an ongoing and forward-looking consequence.”
In Motovich, a request for one day of release after conviction and before sentencing, Kuntz held that the defendant had not rebutted the presumption of detention by clear and convincing evidence. He found that the short release period, $20 million bond, and offer to pay for marshal supervision did not overcome the risk of flight shown by the defendant's resources, overseas ties, use of false identification, access to private transport, and potential sentence.
“Defendant fails to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence he is not likely to flee during his proposed period of release. Consequently, Defendant fails to rebut the presumption of detention pending sentencing.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. 8, is DENIED, and Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. 12, is GRANTED. This matter is hereby dismissed.”
“Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. 12, is GRANTED. This matter is hereby dismissed.”
A pro se SSA plaintiff never responded to the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and ignored a show-cause order. Rather than rule on the (unopposed) defense motion, Kuntz dismissed the action sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute, without prejudice given the plaintiff's pro se status. No party motion was adjudicated on the merits. The order states: 'the above-captioned action is hereby DISMISSED for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b).'
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“Thus, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Strike, as well.”
“Accordingly, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
“this Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant Union's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied in its entirety.”
“The Court therefore ADOPTS Judge Wick's Report ... in its entirety; and DENIES Appellant's briefs at 21-CV-382, ECF No. 9 and 21-CV-1152, ECF No. 4. Accordingly, the Court also DISMISSES the cases captioned Bernardin v. EXR LLC, et al.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion as moot without prejudice to filing a new motion for compassionate release should he be returned to a federal correctional facility.”
“Accordingly, on the basis of the record and law as set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety.”
“For the reasons set forth above. Petitioner's Section 2255 motion is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close this case.”
“The Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and DENIES Futerman's motion to vacate default judgment.”
“Plaintiffs Jones Act claim against the County fails as a matter of law ... Plaintiffs claims against the County are therefore dismissed with prejudice.”
“having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims against the County and finding no independent basis to exercise admiralty jurisdiction, this Court declines, in its discretion, to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim ... Plaintiffs claim against the Town is dismissed without prejudice.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Ramisir's motion for default judgment and for disbursement of funds is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 344 days (N = 2).
- A senior Eastern District of New York judge sitting in Brooklyn, senior since 2022.
- His current assigned docket is dominated by federal criminal matters (United States v. Rawi, Jafferakos, Martino, Huaccha Toscano, Dixon: mostly recent and still pending) and habeas petitions by federal prisoners under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Thompson, Watson, and Pagett v. United States), consistent with a senior judge carrying a criminal-weighted calendar; few terminated contested civil dockets appear in the recent sample.
- 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 | 39 |
| 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 | 24 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 39 | 24 |
| Sep 2025 | 42 | 36 |
| Mar 2025 | 90 | 58 |
| Sep 2024 | 84 | 56 |
| Mar 2024 | 84 | 53 |
| Sep 2023 | 74 | 50 |
| Mar 2023 | 76 | 51 |
| Sep 2022 | 76 | 51 |
| Mar 2022 | 29 | 53 |
| Sep 2021 | 27 | 52 |
| Mar 2021 | 39 | 43 |
| Sep 2020 | 51 | 37 |
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 Kuntz: 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 Kuntz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kuntz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kuntz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace