Henry J. Ricardo

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York magistrate Appointed by Judges of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 5 signed orders read

How Judge Ricardo decides

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

What persuades

At the pleading stage of an ADA website-accessibility case, Ricardo found standing adequately alleged where the complaint identified the attempted purchase, the specific access barriers, continuing inaccessibility, and a concrete reason to return.

“The FAC alleges enough facts to meet all three elements of injury-in-fact”

In employment discovery, he permitted comparator evidence tied to named individuals, complaints, employer responses, and defined time periods.

“Defendants are ORDERED to produce documents sufficient to show all”

Procedural preferences

He tailored social-media production to the pleaded events, claimed emotional distress, treatment, and identified alternative stressors rather than permitting unrestricted account discovery.

“media documents are those that refer or relate to events alleged in the complaint,”

In a pro se discovery dispute, Ricardo required answers to two interrogatories tied to the restaurant and its warning signs but denied two broader requests.

“Plaintiff’s request is denied with regard to Interrogatories 4 and 5”

Cautions

A plaintiff's history of filing similar ADA cases did not create a heightened standing standard; Ricardo assessed the particular complaint under the ordinary pleading-stage presumption.

“prolific ADA plaintiffs are not subject to a heightened”

He declined to appoint a neutral expert in a pro se personal-injury dispute and denied all related relief concerning the opposing expert.

“Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a neutral expert is denied”

Signed rulings

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

Poolos v. Paramount Global
1:23-cv-08896 · 2024-11-26
Motions to compel (defendants) Granted in part

“Motion, ECF No. 42, is GRANTED IN PART.”

Poolos v. Paramount Global
1:23-cv-08896 · 2024-12-12
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Letter Motions is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”

Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part
Manz v. Restaurant Los Tacos No. 1
1:24-cv-07457 · 2025-04-02
Motion for remote deposition (plaintiff) Denied

“at today’s conference, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.”

Motions to compel (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Manz v. Restaurant Los Tacos No. 1
1:24-cv-07457 · 2025-05-27
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Defendant is directed to respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 2”

Motion for appointment of expert (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a neutral expert is denied”

Riley v. Baggu Corporation
1:24-cv-09000 · 2025-08-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons described below, Baggu’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The targeted sample contains one employment case, one personal-injury action, one disability-access case, and two Social Security appeals; four were terminated and one remained pending at review.

Put Judge Ricardo's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Ricardo actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Ricardo's own signed orders and cites them.