James Paul Oetken

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York district Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 14 signed orders read

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 copyright cases he will decide substantial similarity as a matter of law on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion where the works themselves are before him, via a visual comparison -- a motion to dismiss can end a copyright case without discovery.

“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.'”

Procedural preferences

Practices constitutional/jurisdictional avoidance: where a case can be resolved on a narrower, independent ground (e.g. service, venue, personal jurisdiction), he declines to reach harder questions such as FSIA sovereign immunity.

“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.”

Routinely grants leave to amend after a first dismissal of a securities/complex complaint, rather than dismissing with prejudice on the initial motion.

“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.”

Cautions

Does not treat an unopposed dispositive motion as automatically winning: where a defendant's counsel withdrew and the company did not respond, he still examined the record before granting summary judgment.

“Slep-Tone now moves for summary judgment against the remaining Defendant, Clontarfscouse LLC. Eor the reasons that follow, that motion is granted.”

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 = 10
Granted: 6Denied: 4 60% granted
Motions to dismiss
N = 8
Granted: 2Granted in part: 5Denied: 1 counts only
Judgment on the pleadings
N = 1
Granted in part: 1 counts only
Motion to compel arbitration
N = 1
Moot / procedural: 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.

Johnson v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., LLC
224 F. Supp. 3d 296 · 2016-12-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“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 v. Model Service LLC
196 F. Supp. 3d 412 · 2016-07-20
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“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.”

Gilman v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
85 F. Supp. 3d 757 · 2015-01-26
Summary judgment (defendant) 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.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) 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 Entertainment Corp. v. Golf 600 Inc.
193 F. Supp. 3d 292 · 2016-06-16
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Slep-Tone now moves for summary judgment against the remaining Defendant, Clontarfscouse LLC. Eor the reasons that follow, that motion is granted.”

J.W. ex rel. Jake W. v. New York City Department of Education
95 F. Supp. 3d 592 · 2015-03-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Both parties now move for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's motion and denies Plaintiffs' motion.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's motion and denies Plaintiffs' motion.”

Horizon Comics Productions, Inc. v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC
246 F. Supp. 3d 937 · 2017-03-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.”

In re iDreamSky Technology Ltd. Securities Litigation
236 F. Supp. 3d 824 · 2017-02-22
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted 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.”

Pablo Star Ltd. v. Welsh Government
170 F. Supp. 3d 597 · 2016-03-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted 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.”

DeJesus v. City of New York
55 F. Supp. 3d 520 · 2014-10-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation
135 F. Supp. 3d 145 · 2015-09-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.”

Menaldi v. Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC
277 F. Supp. 3d 500 · 2017-09-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) 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.”

J.E. v. New York City Department of Education
229 F. Supp. 3d 223 · 2017-01-23
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Both parties now move for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion is granted and Defendant's cross-motion is-denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant) 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 from search_dockets(assigned_judge='James Paul Oetken'). The visible docket is current and 2026-heavy: ADA Title III public-accommodation access suits, a wave of alien-detainee habeas petitions (463), employment/civil-rights suits, an FLSA/labor matter, and commercial contract. Reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload; no terminated dockets appeared on the page.