Denise Louise Cote

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York district Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 7 signed orders read

How Judge Cote decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Decides insurance-coverage and securities/Blue-Sky disputes on the plain, unambiguous text of the policy or statute and refuses to read in defenses the text does not contain. In FHFA v. HSBC she rejected reading a loss-causation defense into the Virginia/D.C. Blue Sky laws, dismissing the defendants' reliance on post-enactment legislative history.

“Post-enactment legislative history (a contradiction in terms) is not a legitimate tool of statutory interpretation.”

Procedural preferences

Gives strong deference to a jury verdict on a Rule 50 motion: she will not disturb a verdict unless there is a complete absence of supporting evidence, and she states that burden is heaviest once the jury has actually returned a verdict for the non-movant.

“This is a particularly heavy burden where, as here, the jury has deliberated in the case and actually returned its verdict in favor of the non-movant.”

On a motion to transfer venue she applies the first-filed rule together with the Section 1404(a) convenience factors, and holds the movant to a clear-and-convincing burden; a later-filed forum-shopping suit will not displace the plaintiff's chosen forum where the parties, witnesses, and documents are local.

“The movant bears the burden of establishing, by "clear and convincing evidence," that a transfer of venue is warranted.”

At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage she confines herself to the four corners of the complaint and will not consider a defendant's extrinsic facts or exhibits that are not integral to the pleading.

“At the stage of a motion to dismiss, the Court "is limited to facts stated on the face of the complaint and in documents appended to the complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, as well as to matters of which judicial notice may be taken."”

Cautions

Anti-suit injunctions against foreign litigation are granted sparingly and with restraint, but she will issue one where it protects an existing federal judgment -- the discretionary comity factors tilt toward an injunction in that situation.

“principles of comity counsel that injunctions restraining foreign litigation be used sparingly and granted only with care and great restraint.”

Motion outcomes

Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.

Summary judgment
N = 3
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1 counts only
Motions to dismiss
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Anti suit injunction
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion to transfer venue
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for judgment as matter of law
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to certify question
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only

A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

L.C. & Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. LeFrak Organization, Inc.
987 F. Supp. 2d 391 · 2013-12-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“LeFrak has filed a motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.”

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Asia Optical Co.
118 F. Supp. 3d 581 · 2015-07-23
Anti suit injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“Kodak now seeks an anti-suit injunction against AO to halt the Chinese lawsuit. For the following reasons, Kodak's motion is granted.”

Kinsale Insurance Co. v. OBMP NY, LLC
171 F. Supp. 3d 277 · 2016-03-22
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons that follow, Kinsale's motion for summary judgment is granted.”

Children's Network, LLC v. PixFusion LLC
722 F. Supp. 2d 404 · 2010-06-30
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Denied

“Defendant PixFusion, LLC ("PixFusion") has moved to transfer this declaratory judgment action to the Eastern District of Texas where patent infringement litigation involving these parties is pending. By Order dated June 17, 2010, defendant's motion was denied.”

Arbercheski v. Oracle Corp.
650 F. Supp. 2d 309 · 2009-08-28
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Oracle's July 14, 2009 motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Arbercheski's failure to mitigate her damages is granted in part.”

Federal Housing Finance Agency v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc.
988 F. Supp. 2d 363 · 2013-12-16
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons stated below, FHFA's motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and the defendants' motion to certify is denied.”

Motion to certify question (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated below, FHFA's motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and the defendants' motion to certify is denied.”

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Ricoh Co.
4 F. Supp. 3d 574 · 2014-03-06
Motion for judgment as matter of law (defendant) Denied

“On December 3, 2013, Ricoh Company, Ltd. ("Ricoh") filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Rule 50, Fed.R.Civ.P., to vacate a jury verdict entered against it in this contract action brought by Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak"). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Sample from search_dockets(assigned_judge='Denise Cote'). Despite senior status (2011), she remains actively assigned a broad civil docket. The visible 2026 slice reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload.