Colleen McMahon
How Judge McMahon rules, drawn from 35 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McMahon
Colleen McMahon is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge McMahon received a commission on October 22, 1998. Judge McMahon assumed senior status on April 10, 2021.
Judge McMahon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge McMahon, 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.
- Civil Case Management Plan ↗
- Form of Pretrial Order (Annex A) ↗
- Individual Practices and Procedures ↗
- Rico Case Standing Order ↗
- Rules Governing Electronic Discovery ↗
- Sentencing Procedures ↗
- Telephone Appearance Procedures ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Communicate with chambers through ECF filings; do not email chambers.
“All communications with Chambers on any subject must be in writing and filed via ECF, with copies delivered simultaneously to all counsel or pro se parties. Do not send copies of correspondence between counsel to the Court. Courtesy hard copies of all pleadings and all papers filed in connection with a motion are required. See Part V.A. Do not send courtesy copies of any other documents to Chambers unless the Court directs otherwise. Do not send emails to any email address in chambers. Any email sent to a chambers email address will be ignored.”
Filing
Deliver one hard courtesy copy of each ECF motion paper by noon on the first business day after filing.
“are due. NO EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED. The court will rule expeditiously on any lead plaintiff/lead counsel motions. In that decision the court will set a schedule for the filing or a consolidated amended complaint and the making of motions to dismiss. The parties should not bother negotiating a schedule for these matters; the court will set the schedule.”
Discovery
On the first discovery dispute, request an order of reference by ECF letter; bring later disputes to the magistrate judge.
“B. Discovery Disputes When the first discovery dispute arises, file a letter to Chambers via ECF and ask for an order of reference to the Magistrate Judge. Thereafter, take all discovery disputes directly to the Magistrate Judge.”
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 McMahon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a brokerage-contract case, she held that the client authorized the challenged transaction under the agreement by failing to object within one day after receiving written confirmation.
“Under the clear and unambiguous provisions of the contract it signed, Alpental authorized the challenged transaction (hereinafter the 'February 10 transaction') by failing to object to it within one day after receiving a written confirmation of the deal.”
In one insurance coverage dispute, an insured obtained partial summary judgment because the insurer delayed its disclaimer for 40 days despite a readily apparent policy exclusion. The timing and clarity of the exclusion were central to the ruling.
“Given the ease with which one can find the relevant exclusion in the policy and its obvious applicability to the claim asserted in the Underlying Action, the slightly shorter period at issue here is equally unreasonable.”
In one civil rights summary judgment order, she required evidence that a public agency had notice of a recurring, specific use-of-force risk before imposing liability for deficient training. The plaintiff’s broader theory of insufficient training did not establish that notice.
“In the absence of evidence that the Port Authority was on notice of a recurring or predictable risk of similar conduct, no reasonable jury could find that it failed to exercise reasonable care in training its officers.”
Procedural preferences
In Evolution Markets, Inc. v. Alpental Energy Partners, LLC, she rejected a confidentiality counterclaim premised on the public filing of the lawsuit and cited the presumption of access to court documents.
“There is a presumption of public access to documents filed in connection with judicial proceedings, which means that no litigant in a court of law has a right to keep evidence secret and no filing may be made under seal without the permission of the court. This Court is particularly hostile to efforts to litigate in secret and under seal.”
In a Rule 37(e) spoliation dispute, she denied sanctions after finding neither prejudice from the missing material nor an intent to deprive the opponents of its use.
“Because Plaintiffs have shown neither prejudice nor intent to deprive, sanctions are not warranted under Rule 37(e).”
Cautions
In Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, she deferred an unsettled equitable-tolling question while directing factual development on estoppel, and denied the cross-motions without prejudice.
“This court is equally disinclined to deal with a significant issue of first impression if it does not have to, and unless the facts would warrant an equitable estoppel rendering this lawsuit timely, I, too, could avoid addressing the issue.”
In Mou v. BTC King Technology Co., Ltd., she denied email service on defendants abroad after examining the methods permitted under the Hague Service Convention.
“Email is not an available method of service. There is no good faith basis for arguing the contrary.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, petitioner’s claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice as to its eventual renewal.”
“The crux of this case is whether there is any likelihood of consumer confusion. Because plaintiff has not raised a genuine issue of fact as to this issue, defendants' motion is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part; Plaintiff's claims for disability discrimination will be tried, but the rest of her claims are dismissed.”
“Because plaintiff has sued the wrong party for the wrong relief, Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action is granted and Viti's cross motion for summary judgment on on those counts is denied. ... Therefore, all parties' motions are denied to the extent they are addressed to the First and Second Causes of action. This denial is without prejudice.”
“Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action is granted and Viti's cross motion for summary judgment on on those counts is denied.”
“Therefore, Evolution is entitled to summary judgment on its claim for $157,558.18, with interest from the date of the breach, which was June 23, 2015. Alpental's 'counterclaim' is dismissed with prejudice.”
“The Government’s motion for a new protective order is therefore DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and the court declares that the defendant has a duty to defend its insured.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Hospital’s motion for judgment as a'matter of law is DENIED;”
“the motion for a new trial is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;”
“The Hospital’s motion for remittitur is, accordingly, DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees (Dkt. No. 217), is DENIED without prejudice to renewal after retrial.”
“the motion for summary judgment as to the Local 15 Welfare Fund Defendants is granted.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Title VII claims is granted with prejudice. Plaintiffs state and city law claims, as well as any claim she may have under the law of the State of New York for post-employment harassment, are dismissed without prejudice.”
“Defendant’s motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The visible docket slice is current and 2026-heavy but more diverse than the typical page for this court: copyright, trademark, civil rights (jobs and other), libel/slander, commercial contract, a criminal docket, immigration mandamus, and constitutional/state-statute matters.
- Reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload. (Judge McMahon took senior status in 2021, so her historical caseload is far larger than this current-assignment view suggests.)
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 | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 27 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 27 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 26 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 26 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 18 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 17 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 16 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 11 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 7 |
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 McMahon: 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 McMahon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McMahon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McMahon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace