James Paul Oetken
How Judge Oetken rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Oetken
James Paul Oetken is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Oetken received a commission on July 20, 2011.
Judge Oetken's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Oetken, 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.
- Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (Fillable) ↗
- Individual Practices in Criminal Cases ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases ↗
- Model Protective Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not submit courtesy copies unless the court orders or these practices provide otherwise.
“C. No Courtesy Copies. Unless the Court orders otherwise, or as provided otherwise in these Rules (see, e.g., paragraph 6(C)(iv) regarding sealed cases), parties should not submit courtesy copies of any submissions.”
Motions
Pre-motion conferences are required only for discovery disputes.
“B. Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases. Pre-motion conferences are not required, except for disputes concerning discovery, which are governed by paragraph 3(D) above.”
Discovery
After conferring, seek discovery relief by an ECF letter-motion no longer than four pages.
“D. Discovery Disputes. Parties must follow Local Civil Rule 37.2 with the following modifications. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first confer in good faith with the opposing party, in person or by telephone, in an effort to resolve the dispute. If this meet-and-confer process does not resolve the dispute, the party seeking discovery shall promptly file on ECF a letter-motion, no longer than four pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and, if applicable, why the party is entitled to relief and requesting an informal”
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 Oetken decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a copyright case, he applied the rule that a court may decide substantial similarity on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when it has the works needed for comparison.
“where the court has before it 'all that is necessary to make a comparison of the works in question,' it may rule on 'substantial similarity as a matter of law on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.'”
In one business-account fraud dispute, Oetken compelled arbitration because the bank’s broad clause covered the claims and had no discernible temporal limit.
“Citibank’s arbitration provision clearly covers Hiteks’s claims. It contains no discernible temporal limitations.”
In Zhang v. Bondi, the court ordered release after finding that the government’s revocation notice did not give specific reasons and the record did not reliably establish the required informal interview. The ruling turned on those procedural defects in this petitioner’s detention.
“the Notice failed to meet the procedural requirements of § 241.4(l).”
Procedural preferences
In a case involving the Welsh Government, he dismissed the claims on independent grounds and declined to reach immunity under the FSIA.
“Because the claims against the Welsh Government in this case must be dismissed on independent grounds, the Court declines to reach the issue of immunity under the FSIA.”
In a securities case, he granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and also granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED. Plaintiff's request for leave to file an amended complaint is also GRANTED.”
In pension interpleader, he treated a divorce settlement as the limit on a later domestic relations order and would not extend benefits beyond the settlement’s specified earning period.
“the QDRO appears to provide Sanchez with greater benefits than what is provided to her in the underlying stipulation.”
In one wage case, the court found employees similarly situated for conditional collective certification based on shared pay schedules. It treated the employer’s argument about the ultimate FLSA violation as a merits question for later proceedings.
“the Court cannot resolve substantive issues on a procedural motion for collective certification.”
In Charming Medical, the court selected a lead plaintiff group with the largest demonstrated financial interest after comparing the competing groups’ shares, expenditures, and estimated losses and checking preliminary adequacy under Rule 23.
“Under the relevant factors, Charming Investor Group is therefore indisputably the movant with the largest financial interest.”
Cautions
In an unopposed summary-judgment motion against Clontarfscouse LLC, he granted Slep-Tone’s motion after considering the remaining claim.
“Slep-Tone now moves for summary judgment against the remaining Defendant, Clontarfscouse LLC. Eor the reasons that follow, that motion is granted.”
A one-year outer deadline for hail-loss claims did not excuse delayed notice where the same policy separately required prompt notice; a six-month delay without a supported excuse defeated coverage.
“the Addendum imposes two independent requirements:”
In one discovery dispute, Oetken dissolved an interim restriction on sharing deposition material because the defendants described potential embarrassment in broad terms without identifying specific testimony or a concrete harm.
“But Defendants do not identify with any specificity the portions of the deposition that would cause such harm to Crawford, do not explain why those portions would cause that harm, and do not articulate with any detail what that harm would look like.”
In the Actinium Pharmaceuticals securities litigation, he dismissed the complaint after finding that it identified no actionable false statement and that the company had warned investors about the trial risks at issue.
“Given these fulsome warnings, it is unlikely that ‘a reasonable investor could have been misled into thinking that the risk that materialized and resulted in his loss did not actually exist.’”
In DeLoach, Oetken denied the plaintiff’s Rule 11 sanctions cross-motion because he did not serve it and wait through the required 21-day safe-harbor period before filing.
“DeLoach’s cross-motion for Rule 11 sanctions fails because DeLoach did not serve TransUnion with the motion for Rule 11 sanctions and wait twenty-one days before filing”
In Block’s post-trial motion, he found withheld impeachment information insufficient to warrant a new trial because the witness’s testimony was corroborated by other evidence.
“Steel’s testimony was not only corroborated by extensive credible evidence, but was largely undisputed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants move to dismiss each claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, their motions are denied.”
“Agerbrink now moves for partial summary judgment with respect to Defendants' liability on her individual claim for unjust enrichment. (Dkt. No. 92.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.”
“Plaintiffs and Defendants now move for summary judgment and Defendants move to strike an affidavit from Samantha Mohs, a Marsh employee. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied, and Defendants' motion to strike is denied.”
“For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied, and Defendants' motion to strike is denied.”
“Slep-Tone now moves for summary judgment against the remaining Defendant, Clontarfscouse LLC. Eor the reasons that follow, that motion is granted.”
“Both parties now move for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's motion and denies Plaintiffs' motion.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's motion and denies Plaintiffs' motion.”
“For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Before the Court are two motions to dismiss, filed by IDS and by the four underwriter Defendants. (Dkt. No. 40; Dkt. No. 42.) For the reasons that follow, these motions are granted in part, and denied in part.”
“Because the Welsh Government was not properly served under the FSIA, venue is improper, and the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over all but one of the Publisher Defendants, the motion is, with certain limited exceptions, granted.”
“Defendants move to dismiss DeJesus's false arrest and malicious prosecution claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, their motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.”
“Plaintiffs have now filed an amended complaint, seeking (1) to revive previously dismissed claims, (2) to revive claims against Cohen, and (3) to assert new claims. All three attempts fail, leaving Plaintiffs with the claims previously allowed to go forward in Menaldi I.”
“Both parties now move for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion is granted and Defendant's cross-motion is-denied.”
“For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion is granted and Defendant's cross-motion is-denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample of the judge's current case assignments. The visible slice is recent and 2026-heavy: ADA Title III public-accommodation access suits, a wave of alien-detainee habeas petitions (463), employment and civil-rights suits, an FLSA/labor matter, and commercial contract. It reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload; no terminated cases appeared in the sample.
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 | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 18 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 19 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 27 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 28 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 31 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 31 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 33 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 48 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 36 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 28 |
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 Oetken: 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 Oetken with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Oetken, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Oetken's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace