Jed S. Rakoff

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

How Judge Rakoff decides

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

What persuades

On New York fraudulent-inducement claims he gives real effect to broad merger/disclaimer clauses between sophisticated, counseled parties -- a defendant pointing to such clauses plus the plaintiff's ability to protect itself can defeat reliance as a matter of law (3COM v. Capital 4).

“no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that reliance on the alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations alleged here was reasonable in the absence of contractual language carving out such representations from the general disclaimer on such reliance set forth in the merger language.”

Procedural preferences

Exacting Daubert/Rule 702 gatekeeper: he will strike a damages expert whose opinion rests on data the expert himself concedes is inaccurate or on unsupported extrapolation assumptions, and excluding the expert can carry the summary-judgment motion (Compania v. Pepsi).

“when an expert opinion is based on data, a methodology, or studies that are simply inadequate to support the conclusions reached, Daubert and Rule 702 mandate the exclusion of that unreliable opinion testimony.”

Moves cases on a tight schedule and often issues a 'bottom-line' order resolving a motion first, with the reasoned opinion to follow -- count on prompt rulings and firm trial dates (3COM v. Capital 4; Cortese docket).

“On February 26, 2009, the Court issued a 'bottom-line' Order granting the motion. This Memorandum Order gives the reasons for this determination.”

He scrutinizes agency settlements and interlocutory maneuvering rather than rubber-stamping them: having rejected the SEC's $285M no-admission consent judgment with Citigroup for want of any proven or admitted facts to judge its fairness, he then refused to stay the case while the parties pursued a disfavored interlocutory appeal, finding no statutory basis under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). A party presenting him an agreed disposition should expect him to demand a factual basis and to keep the litigation moving.

“The SEC, joined by Citigroup, now moves to stay all proceedings in this case pending determination of those appeals. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.”

Cautions

Zero tolerance for discovery gamesmanship and bad-faith filings -- he will impose substantial joint-and-several sanctions on a party and its counsel for fabricated submissions (Eastcott v. Hasselblad).

“Contrary to the apparent view of plaintiff and his counsel, a legal forum is not the place to play a shell game.”

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 = 8
Granted: 6Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to dismiss
N = 3
Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 counts only
Motion for judgment on pleadings
N = 2
Granted: 1Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to exclude expert
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion for sanctions
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motions to stay
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to certify interlocutory appeal
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion to vacate arbitration award
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.

3COM Corporation v. Capital 4, Inc.
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52166 · 2009-06-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the defendants ... moved for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss Count IV of the Complaint, which alleged fraudulent inducement. On February 26, 2009, the Court issued a 'bottom-line' Order granting the motion.”

Compania Embotelladora Del Pacifico, S.A. v. Pepsi Cola Co.
650 F. Supp. 2d 314 · 2009-09-08
Motion to exclude expert (defendant) Granted

“PepsiCo now moves to exclude the opinions and testimony of two of CEPSA's experts ... all three motions are granted.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“moves for summary judgment dismissing CEP-SA's sole remaining breach of contract claim ... all three motions are granted.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“CEPSA, in turn, moves for partial summary judgment dismissing PepsiCo's Concentrate Counterclaim ... all three motions are granted.”

Dembin v. LVI Services, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129032 · 2011-11-08
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court granted from the bench defendants' motion with respect to plaintiff Shari Dembin's claims of discriminatory retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law ... the Court hereby denies the motion to dismiss the remaining ADEA retaliation claim against the LVI Defendants.”

Eastcott v. Hasselblad A/S
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138297 · 2012-09-25
Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted

“the Court hereby grants defendants' motion ... sanctions in the amount of $12,815.20 are imposed on Eastcott and his counsel, jointly and severally, for creating, submitting, and continuing to rely on the sham invoice”

Archie MD, Inc. v. Elsevier, Inc.
261 F. Supp. 3d 512 · 2017-08-20
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the Court now once again considers Elsevier's motion for summary judgment with regard to Archie's remaining claim, and, for the reasons explained below, denies the motion and instructs the parties to contact the Court in order to schedule a trial on the remaining claim.”

Taberna Capital Management, LLC v. Dunmore
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65284 · 2008-08-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the Memorandum Order of July 14, 2008, the individual defendants' motions to dismiss are denied.”

Leawood Bancshares Inc. v. Alesco Preferred Fundings X, Ltd.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119545 · 2011-10-14
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Now that discovery is complete, the parties have again filed motions for summary judgment. Having carefully reviewed the summary judgment record, the Court now grants plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that (1) defendant Alesco breached the letter agreement and (2) CrossFirst was a third party beneficiary of the letter agreement.”

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148610 · 2011-12-27
Motions to stay (plaintiff) Denied

“The SEC, joined by Citigroup, now moves to stay all proceedings in this case pending determination of those appeals. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.”

Dimensional Emerging Markets Value Fund v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.
152 F. Supp. 3d 186 · 2016-01-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“On August 21, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the above-captioned individual actions. After full briefing, the Court, by bottom-line Order dated October 19, 2015, (the "October 19 Order") granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion.”

Picard v. Katz
825 F. Supp. 2d 484 · 2012-01-17
Motion to certify interlocutory appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.”

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Payton
97 F. Supp. 3d 558 · 2015-04-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is hereby denied.”

Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc.
677 F. Supp. 2d 661 · 2009-12-28
Motion to vacate arbitration award (defendant) Denied

“By summary Order dated August 31, 2009, the Court denied Sterling’s motion in its entirety.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Sample from search_dockets(assigned_judge='Jed Saul Rakoff', filed 2016-2019, terminated). As a senior judge he keeps a full mixed docket: securities/commercial contract, patent, consumer-credit, FOIA, FLSA/labor, and a heavy criminal calendar. Many commercial dockets terminate very fast (weeks) via default/settlement; contested matters (FLSA collective, FOIA) run longer. Case durations below are filed-minus-terminated for terminated civil dockets in the sample.