Dale Edwin Ho
How Judge Ho rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ho
Dale Edwin Ho is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Ho received a commission on August 18, 2023.
Judge Ho's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ho, 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 and Scheduling Order ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices for Hearings and Trials ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices in Criminal Cases ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not send courtesy copies unless the court orders otherwise.
“d. No Courtesy Copies. Unless the Court orders otherwise, parties should not submit courtesy copies of any submissions.”
Motions
Pre-motion letters and conferences are required only for discovery disputes and summary judgment in nonjury cases.
“a. Pre-Motion Letters and Conferences in Civil Cases. Pre-motion letters and conferences are not required, except for: (i) discovery disputes under Section 4(k) of these Rules; and (ii) summary judgment motions in non-jury cases under Section 4(g) of these Rules.”
Discovery
After conferring, a party seeking discovery may file an ECF letter-motion of no more than three pages.
“ii. If the meet-and-confer process does not resolve the dispute, the party seeking discovery may file on ECF a letter-motion, no longer than three pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and, if applicable, why the party is entitled to relief and requesting a conference before the Court.”
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 Ho decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Adams, Judge Ho granted the government's Rule 48(a) request to dismiss the indictment but dismissed the case with prejudice, rejecting the requested possibility of bringing the same charges later.
“The Court declines, in its limited discretion under Rule 48(a), to endorse that outcome. Instead, it dismisses this case with prejudice—meaning that the Government may not bring the charges in the Indictment against Mayor Adams in the future.”
In Soleimani v. White Oak Global Advisors, LLC, Judge Ho granted WOGA's motion to dismiss because the contract provisions the plaintiff relied on bound an affiliated entity, WOHCF, rather than WOGA.
“WOGA moves to dismiss, arguing that only WOHCF, not WOGA, is bound by the provisions of the contract relied upon by Soleimani. For the reasons set forth below, WOGA's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
In Zainfeld v. Vivid Seats, LLC, Judge Ho granted transfer to the Eastern District of New York under the first-filed rule because a parallel action was pending there; he left the arbitration and dismissal motions unresolved.
“Based on the totality of the circumstances, and following the first-filed rule, the Court holds that Defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that a transfer to the Eastern District of New York, where a parallel action is pending, would be in the interests of convenience and fairness.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Adams, he granted a motion to seal in part and directed that public versions of the documents redact only phone numbers and email addresses.
“the Department's Motion to Seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The documents in question ... shall be filed under seal in unredacted form with access limited to the Court and the relevant parties; versions on the public docket shall be filed with redactions limited to phone numbers and email addresses.”
In EAD Group, Ho stayed the entire case after compelling arbitration of some claims because the related claims against other defendants overlapped factually and separate proceedings would duplicate work.
“Given that overlap, the Court concludes that it would be appropriate to stay this litigation in its entirety pending resolution of arbitration, in order to avoid piecemeal and/or duplicative proceedings.”
Cautions
In United States v. Adams, Judge Ho found the government's stated 'appearances of impropriety' rationale pretextual and described the proposed dismissal as a bargain involving immigration-policy concessions.
“All of this suggests that the ‘appearances of impropriety’ rationale is not just thin, but pretextual. ... Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.”
In Rosa v. Eaton, he dismissed the defamation claim after finding that an average reader would understand Eaton’s Instagram posts and comments as opinions.
“an average reader viewing Eaton’s Instagram would understand his posts and comments as reflective of Eaton’s opinions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS the motion to transfer venue.”
“The Court does not address the request for consolidation, or the motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss, ECF No. 18, leaving those decisions to the Eastern District of New York.”
“For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff's reasonable accommodation claims are dismissed. ... Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not set forth any allegations that her termination was motivated by discrimination, Defendants' motion to dismiss any employment discrimination claims arising from her termination is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate ECF Nos. 61, 64, 66, to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff, and to close the case. SO ORDERED.”
“In sum, all four parts of the test for res judicata are satisfied here. ... Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED on res judicata grounds, and the Court need not reach the other grounds for dismissal Defendants have raised. ... For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate ECF Nos. 33 and 35.”
“For the reasons given above, the Government's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The parties shall meet and confer and file a proposed form of judgment for so-ordering by September 24, 2024.”
“For the reasons given above, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL. The class is certified consistent with the Report's Recommendation. See R&R at 38. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate ECF Nos. 128 and 175.”
“The Housing Defendants' motion to seal certain sensitive medical information submitted in connection with their objections to the Report, see ECF No. 175, is GRANTED. No party objects to the motion. ... Here, the Court concludes that sealing is justified and that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to the protection of Plaintiff's private health information.”
“ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 23 Motion to Stay; granting 25 Motion for Leave to File Document. ... Because Plaintiff's motion is granted, Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to stay are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This dismissal is without prejudice, as Plaintiff proceeds pro se and has not yet amended his pleadings.”
“Here, for the reasons stated above, Mr. Gerard's Motion to Amend is GRANTED, and his Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Here, for the reasons stated above, Mr. Gerard's Motion to Amend is GRANTED, and his Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Upon reviewing the latest submissions from the parties and applicable guidance from the Second Circuit regarding the issue of reasonable accommodation under the ADA, the Court concludes that reconsideration of its prior rulings on Mr. Gerard's reasonable accommodation and cooperative dialogue claims is appropriate.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motions to Postpone the effective date of the termination of Yemen's TPS designation are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate ECF No. 5 in Case 26 Civ. 2103 and ECF No. 22 in Case 26 Civ. 2280.”
“Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS the Government to produce by 12:00 p.m. on April 14, 2026 the certified administrative record pertinent to the decision to terminate TPS for nationals from Yemen in the above-captioned case and in related case 26 Civ. 2103.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant Columbia University is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to file proof of service on the docket.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Ho was commissioned in August 2023. The reviewed cases include immigration, education, employment, insurance, arbitration, wage, and commercial disputes, alongside a criminal docket. Several early 2024 civil cases ended by settlement. This describes selected assignments, not a tenure-wide mix.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 30 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 30 |
| Sep 2025 | 18 | 27 |
| Mar 2025 | 35 | 22 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 20 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 18 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
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 Ho: 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 Ho with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ho, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ho's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace