Jennifer Louise Rochon
How Judge Rochon rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rochon
Jennifer Louise Rochon is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Rochon received a commission on June 13, 2022.
Judge Rochon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Rochon, 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.
- Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases ↗
- Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (Fillable) ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Pro Se Cases ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Criminal Cases ↗
Key rules
Filing
At reply service, the movant must deliver two courtesy copies of the briefs, without declarations or exhibits.
“F. Courtesy Copies. Two courtesy copies of the parties’ briefing must be submitted via mail or hand delivery by the movant at the time that the reply is served, not by each party at the time of filing. The Court does not require courtesy copies of supporting declarations or exhibits. All courtesy copies must be labeled as such”
Motions
Pre-motion conferences are required only for discovery and summary-judgment motions.
“A. Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases. Pre-motion conferences are not required, except for motions concerning discovery, which are governed by Section 2.E above, and for summary-judgment motions, which are governed by Section 3.I below.”
Discovery
A good-faith in-person or telephone conference is required before the court considers a discovery dispute.
“E. Discovery Disputes. The parties must follow SDNY 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. The Court enforces this requirement in both counseled and pro se cases (except where not feasible, such as when the pro se litigant is incarcerated) and will not consider any discovery dispute where the moving party has not satisfied the good-faith conference requirement. The”
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 Rochon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Pandya v. Securities and Exchange Commission, she construed the pro se plaintiff’s amended complaint broadly before dismissing it on service, jurisdictional, and pleading grounds.
“Given Pandya’s pro se status, the Court construes the Amended Complaint broadly.”
On a CAFA removal of a New York GBL class action, the removing defendant bears the burden; statutory minimum and treble damages a plaintiff could not have sought in a state-court class action under C.P.L.R. 901(b) are excluded from the amount-in-controversy, and Shady Grove does not change that because it governs actions originally filed in federal court, not removed ones.
“Plaintiff is correct that the statutory minimum damages and treble damages should be excluded from the Court’s amount-in-controversy calculation, since he has not sought them and would be barred from seeking them in the class action he filed in New York state court.”
In a dispute involving Tottenham tickets, she held that the obligation to arbitrate arose from the website User Agreement rather than the disputed ticket transaction.
“The obligation to arbitrate is based on the User Agreement, not the alleged transaction for the Tottenham tickets.”
In Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security, the court found that the appropriations text did not expressly authorize spending the cited border security funds on the challenged advertisements when assessing the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on their emergency motion.
“The plain language of the relevant appropriations acts does not expressly provide DHS or CBP with the authority to use appropriated funds for these advertisements.”
Procedural preferences
In ADA Title III (serial-tester) suits she front-loads the standing question: her standing order directs the parties to meet and confer and to consider whether the plaintiff has Article III standing before litigating, citing the Second Circuit's Calcano and Harty decisions.
“In their discussions, the parties should consider whether plaintiff has satisfied the threshold requirement of standing. See, e.g., Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd., 36 F.4th 68, 77-78 (2d Cir. 2022); Harty v. W. Point Realty, Inc., 28 F.4th 435, 443-44 (2d Cir. 2022).”
Applies the strong preference for resolving cases on the merits when deciding whether to vacate default, weighing willfulness, a potentially meritorious defense, prejudice, and that institutional preference.
“there is a the strong preference for resolving cases on the merits weighing in favor of vacating the default.”
In a special-education case, protected the minor’s sensitive administrative record while requiring redacted public versions of hearing transcripts and the school contract.
“while the vast majority of the administrative record shall be maintained under seal, the parties shall file public versions — with appropriate redactions applied — of the underlying hearing transcripts and the 2024-25 iBrain contract.”
For immigration detention bond review, requires the immigration judge to consider workable alternatives to detention; an unsupported rejection of all alternatives warranted a supplemental hearing.
“the IJ did violate Petitioner’s due process rights by failing to adequately consider alternatives to detention.”
Consolidated related commercial lease suits when the guaranty claim depended on the same alleged lease breaches at issue in the later action and overlapping discovery made separate proceedings inefficient.
“Because the actions involve the same underlying contracts, premises, and parties, there are likely to be overlapping witnesses, discovery requests, and document productions.”
In Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security, the court partly expanded an existing temporary restraining order after finding a likelihood of success on an ultra vires claim and a strong showing of irreparable harm for three additional advertisements.
“the Court finds that the Moving Plaintiffs have demonstrated a clear and substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their ultra vires claim against the Defendants with respect to at least three of the challenged advertisements and have presented a strong showing of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.”
Cautions
Service on a United States agency is enforced strictly under Rule 4(i): a plaintiff must serve the U.S. Attorney for the district, the Attorney General, AND the agency; serving only the agency is insufficient and supports 12(b)(5) dismissal.
“Pandya’s filing does not indicate that he served the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, both of which are also required under Rule 4(i). ... Accordingly, Pandya has not adequately the served the SEC, and the Court grants the SEC’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process.”
The United States and its agencies are immune from suit absent an express congressional waiver, and the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a claim falls within an applicable waiver; a generalized 'negligence' argument does not waive sovereign immunity.
“The United States and its agencies, including the SEC, are immune from suit unless ‘Congress has expressly waived sovereign immunity.’”
In this case, she declined another opportunity to amend because the plaintiff’s amended complaint had not cured the defects in the original complaint.
“Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint did not remedy the defects in the original complaint, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff another opportunity to amend.”
Her summary judgment rules call for a joint statement of agreed facts. Separate lengthy statements and responses that dispute legal characterization rather than facts complicated the court’s review.
“The resulting submissions unnecessarily complicated the task that a joint statement was intended to simplify.”
A product’s temporary failure alone did not plead a design or manufacturing defect or show it was unfit for its intended purpose, defeating an implied-warranty claim at dismissal.
“but not that this failure was the result of a design or manufacturing defect, or that the product was unfit for its intended purpose. That is fatal to her claim.”
In one excessive-force case, the court granted judgment on the pleadings to an officer on qualified immunity. It assumed factual uncertainties in the detainee’s favor but found no clearly established rule covering the conduct shown in the referenced video.
“Because the deficiency is one of clearly established law rather than an unresolved factual premise, June is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the SEC’s motion and dismisses the Amended Complaint without leave to amend, and DENIES as moot Pandya’s motion for summary judgment.”
“Accordingly, the Court also denies as moot Pandya’s motion for summary judgment.”
“For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice as moot.”
Rochon dismissed the original pro se complaint on screening to the extent it asserted claims for other entities, sought criminal prosecution of others, or brought sovereign-immunity-barred claims against the Securities and Exchange Commission. She granted the plaintiff 30 days to amend. Because no party motion was decided, the order is excluded from motion statistics.
“For the reasons stated on the record, the Petition is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s GBL claims and Plaintiff’s claims under the consumer-fraud statutes of the additional states. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s other claims.”
“For the foregoing reasons, StubHub’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED, and the Court hereby STAYS the case pending completion of arbitration proceedings.”
“StubHub’s motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice as moot.”
“Plaintiff’s cross-motion to amend the complaint is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED. The certificate of default (ECF No. 11) is VACATED.”
“Castillo’s motion to vacate the arbitration award dated August 14, 2025 is DENIED and Altice’s motion to confirm that arbitration award is GRANTED.”
“Defendant June’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s sealing motion is GRANTED, in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 155 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 99.5 days (N = 36).
- Active, high-volume SDNY civil + criminal docket.
- Nature-of-suit mix observed across enumerated dockets (qualitative, not a census): a 2025-2026 surge of 463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee petitions; recurring 446 ADA Title III (serial-tester) accessibility suits; 710 FLSA / labor; 820 Copyright and 840 Trademark (incl. 'Schedule A' IP-enforcement actions); 442 employment civil rights; securities (e.g. Heilbut v. Cassava Sciences); qui tam (United States v. Docusign); plus a criminal calendar and high-profile P.I. matters (e.g. Doe v. Combs).
- Among terminated CIVIL dockets, resolution is dominated by settlement and Rule 41 voluntary dismissal rather than merits ruling.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 22 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 25 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 22 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, not for Judge Rochon: 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 Rochon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rochon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rochon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace