Alvin K. Hellerstein
How Judge Hellerstein rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hellerstein
Alvin K. Hellerstein is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Hellerstein received a commission on October 22, 1998. Judge Hellerstein assumed senior status on January 30, 2011.
Judge Hellerstein's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hellerstein, 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
Filing
Send chambers one courtesy copy of pleadings, motions, and supporting papers, except pro hac vice motions.
“F. Courtesy Copies. Parties shall send to Chambers one courtesy copy of all pleadings, motions, and supporting papers, except motions for admission pro hac vice. In the event of an especially voluminous submission, and only with written approval from Chambers, parties may submit their exhibits by CD. In any event, courtesy copies are to be submitted without plastic covers.”
Motions
Counsel should file motions without requesting a pre-motion conference or permission; letter motions are not accepted.
“B. Motions. Counsel shall not request a pre-motion or permission to file a motion. Motions may be filed in the discretion of the attorneys, and shall conform to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Letter motions or oppositions will not be accepted.”
Conferences
Request adjournments or extensions in writing at least 48 hours before the scheduled date.
“D. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time. All requests for adjournments (including adjournments of court conferences) or extensions of time must be made in writing at least 48 hours before the scheduled deadline or date of appearance. All requests must state: (i) the original date; (ii) the number of”
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 8, 2026).
- Amended Standing Order on Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Second Amended Standing Order on Civil Case Opening ↗
- Amended Standing Order on Miscellaneous Civil Case Opening ↗
- Standing Order on Applications to File a Civil Case Under Seal ↗
- Standing Order on Emergency Relief and Section 2255 Filing Procedures ↗
- Notice on Immigration Custody Habeas Petitions and Emergency Relief ↗
How Judge Hellerstein decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Swatch Group v. Bloomberg, he denied a motion to dismiss a copyright claim over a simultaneously recorded conference call. He held that the pleaded recording was fixed and sufficiently original, and that registration before suit made the advance-notice procedure in § 411(c) unnecessary.
“Because Swatch Group fixed the call in a tangible medium of expression simultaneously with its transmission, because Swatch Group’s sound recording was independently created, and because Swatch Group’s senior executives’ spoken-word contributions to the sound recording have the requisite creativity, Management Services has sufficiently pleaded a claim of copyright infringement.”
In an ERISA benefits-interference pleading, allegations that an employer cut hours to avoid coverage supported a plausible claim, including a request for lost wages tied to restoring benefits.
“Accordingly, accepting as I must that these factual allegations will be proved, the complaint states a plausible and legally sufficient claim for relief, including, at this stage, Plaintiffs claim for lost wages and salary incidental to the reinstatement of benefits.”
Procedural preferences
In a contract-formation dispute, he held that the parties had not formed a contract because they never agreed on a choice-of-law term, granted Cedar’s summary-judgment motion, and denied Hanwha’s cross-motion.
“For the reasons that follow, I hold that because the parties could not agree on a choice of law, they did not form a contract. I therefore grant Cedar’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and I deny Hanwha’s cross-motion.”
In one employment dispute, the court denied arbitration because the employer had presented it as an employee choice rather than a required condition of continued employment.
“Macy’s never presented Step 4 of the InSTORE program — binding arbitration — as a term or condition of continued employment.”
In a copyright circumvention dispute, he let an access-control claim proceed because the complaint plausibly described a technological measure and the pleadings did not establish how it operated. A party challenging such a claim may need a developed technical record.
“Whether YouTube's measures ultimately constitute access controls within the meaning of § 1201 requires a greater factual record than the pleadings contain.”
On remand concerning a second attempt to remove a state prosecution, he denied leave because the cited grounds were not new and good cause and diligence had not been established.
“He has failed to show good cause and diligence.”
In G.F.F. v. Trump, he denied a motion to decertify the district-limited habeas class. The order considered the possibility of repeated removal proceedings, access to counsel, judicial efficiency, and due process for future class members.
“Judicial efficiency, and considerations of due process for individuals yet to be ordered to be removed, support a class action.”
Cautions
In litigation arising from the September 11 debris, he considered the families’ claims on the merits and reluctantly dismissed them because the complaint did not state a legally sufficient claim under the Constitution or New York law.
“I hold, with reluctance, for the suffering of the families thus affected by the events of September 11, 2001 is great, that plaintiffs are not able to state a legally sufficient claim for relief under the United States Constitution or under New York law. Consequently, defendants’ motion is granted, and the Complaint is dismissed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The motion of defendant Bloomberg L.P. (‘Bloomberg’) to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is hereby denied.”
“For the reasons that follow, Jewelex’s motion is granted.”
“I therefore grant Cedar’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and I deny Hanwha’s cross-motion.”
“Consequently, defendants’ motion is granted, and the Complaint is dismissed.”
“For the reasons that follow, I grant American’s motion and limit the damages that Cantor Fitzgerald may claim.”
“ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION: FOIA EXEMPTION THREE APPLIES DESPITE CLAIMS THAT UNDERLYING INTELLIGENCE SOURCES OR METHODS VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION OR STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss are denied.”
“The joint motion to certify the class is denied.”
“Plaintiffs claims are not supported by evidence, and no jury could reasonably find in her favor. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Plaintiffs motion for fees and costs is granted in part.”
“Defendants’ motion is denied.”
“GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The visible docket slice is current and 2025-2026-heavy and reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload; durations are filed minus terminated.
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 | 5 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 16 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 23 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 16 | 18 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 16 |
| Sep 2021 | 13 | 79 |
| Mar 2021 | 11 | 86 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 91 |
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 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, not for Judge Hellerstein: 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 | 9,565 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,749 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,416 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,313 | 14.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 87 | 51.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 9,565 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 10,695 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 10,316 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 11,818 | 6.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 10,662 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 10,118 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 11,357 | 6.6 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 Hellerstein with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hellerstein, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hellerstein's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace