Andrew L. Carter Jr.
How Judge Carter rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Carter
Andrew Lamar Carter, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Carter received a commission on December 8, 2011.
Judge Carter's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Carter, 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
Contacting chambers
For civil cases, email chambers a PDF courtesy copy of ECF letters with all counsel copied.
“Generally, letters should be filed electronically on ECF and courtesy copies should be emailed to Chambers at [email protected] as a .pdf attachment, with all counsel copied on the email. Counsel should include the case caption, docket number, and a brief”
Motions
Civil motions generally require a pre-motion conference, subject to the listed exceptions.
“A pre-motion conference with the Court is required before making any motion, except:”
Conferences
Send adjournment and extension requests by ECF letter and email at least two business days before the appearance.
“D. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time. Applications for adjournments and extensions of time must be made by letter posted to ECF (not by telephone) and received in Chambers by email (or regular mail for pro se litigants) at least two business days before the scheduled appearance. See Rule 1A.”
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 Carter decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a trademark dispute over use of a brand in a feature film, he granted the defendant’s Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss after considering the parties’ arguments.
“On March 14, 2012, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). The court has fully considered the parties' arguments, and for the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is granted.”
In Alamo Title Company v. Dasol Holdings, the court granted temporary relief after the plaintiff presented a verified account of diverted sale proceeds, a risk that the funds would be dissipated, and a need to trace their path through bank and cryptocurrency accounts. It also allowed expedited discovery.
“the Court GRANTS the motion.”
Procedural preferences
In a summary-judgment dispute involving Local Rule 56.1, he took a practical approach and examined the underlying deposition testimony where appropriate.
“The Court will take a ‘practical approach,’ Jones v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 170 F.Supp.3d 420, (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (citation omitted), and examine the underlying deposition testimony where appropriate.”
In a dispute over an agency agreement, he granted a motion to compel arbitration of a cross-claim and denied the opposing motion to stay arbitration.
“FFIC's motion to compel arbitration of CUA's cross-claim is GRANTED. Its motion to sever the cross-claim is denied in part and granted in part. CUA's motion to stay arbitration is DENIED.”
In Spot Fashion's removal dispute, he measured the removal period from the insurer's receipt of the pleading from its statutory agent, rather than counsel's earlier email or the agent's receipt.
“Defendant’s Notice of Removal filed on December 31, 2025, was well within the 30-day removal period.”
In Team DML Inc. v. Beehiiv Inc., the court denied a dismissal motion without prejudice because the defendants filed it before requesting the pre-motion conference required by his individual practices. The order directed them to request the conference by letter.
“The Court hereby DENIES such motion without prejudice.”
Cautions
In an employment-discrimination case, he granted in part and denied in part a motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied a separate motion to dismiss.
“For the reasons set forth below, this Court denies in part and grants in part Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.”
A finding of no personal jurisdiction did not immediately end two claims; the court requested submissions on transfer before deciding whether to dismiss them.
“The Court ORDERS the Parties to show cause as to why the case against Avery and Anderson should not be transferred instead of dismissed.”
He denied a request to compel arbitration based on a proposed settlement that the parties had not clearly finalized. Counsel relying on a negotiated settlement should secure agreement on all material terms and formal execution when the transaction calls for it.
“Given its complexity, one would expect the Settlement Agreement to be formally signed and executed before being rendered enforceable.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants now move for summary judgment on all claims, and Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment on three discrete issues. As set forth more fully below, Defendants' motion is granted in full and Plaintiffs is denied, as the contract claim is barred by the lack of evidence of a written contract and the copyright claim is time-barred.”
“Defendants' motion is granted in full and Plaintiffs is denied, as the contract claim is barred by the lack of evidence of a written contract and the copyright claim is time-barred.”
“For the reasons set forth below, this Court denies in part and grants in part Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court denies in part and grants in part the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court denies the motion to dismiss and the motion for sanctions.”
“The Court denies the motion to dismiss and the motion for sanctions.”
“On March 14, 2012, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). The court has fully considered the parties' arguments, and for the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is granted.”
“For the reasons set forth below, FFIC's motion to compel arbitration of CUA's cross-claim is GRANTED. Its motion to sever the cross-claim is denied in part and granted in part. CUA's motion to stay arbitration is DENIED.”
“Its motion to sever the cross-claim is denied in part and granted in part.”
“CUA's motion to stay arbitration is DENIED.”
“Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the First and Third Counts of the Complaint and the issue of personal liability of the Borrower Defendants is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment against the Defaulting Defendants is GRANTED.”
“the motion to strike the Seals Declaration is hereby DENIED.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, in part. The federal claims are dismissed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Two views. (1) A historical 2014-filed cohort, now terminated, enumerated oldest-first for the motion sample: contested civil work spanning RICO, ERISA, FLSA wage-and-hour, employment discrimination/retaliation, trademark, insurance, and Social Security appeals: most of which settled at magistrate-referred mediation. (2) A current 2026-heavy slice reflecting present assignments: a wave of alien-detainee habeas petitions, civil-rights/employment suits, an FDCPA consumer matter, and immigration/agency matters.
- The durations below are from the sampled 2014 cohort only and are not a tenure-wide distribution.
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 | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 63 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 63 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 61 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 56 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 56 |
| Mar 2024 | 13 | 63 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 60 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 69 |
| Sep 2022 | 11 | 75 |
| Mar 2022 | 20 | 56 |
| Sep 2021 | 24 | 60 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 53 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 47 |
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 Carter: 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 Carter with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Carter, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Carter's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace