Jesse M. Furman
How Judge Furman rules, drawn from 43 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Furman
Jesse Matthew Furman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Furman received a commission on February 17, 2012.
Judge Furman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Furman, 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.
- Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order (Fillable) ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Pro Se Cases ↗
- Individual Rules and Practices in Criminal Cases ↗
- Individual Rules of Practices for Hearings and Trials ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not submit courtesy copies unless the court orders otherwise.
“D. No Courtesy Copies. Unless the Court orders otherwise, 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, either party may raise a discovery dispute by an ECF letter-motion of no more than three 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, either party may file on ECF a letter-motion, no longer than three pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and, if applicable, why 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 Furman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a contract dispute, he held that the agreement’s plain language sent the parties’ dispute first to an independent accounting firm rather than arbitration.
“In light of the plain language of the parties' agreement, the Court agrees with Alstom that the dispute must be submitted, in the first instance at least, to the independent accounting firm.”
In a copyright case, he compared the works at the pleading stage and applied the rule that the works themselves control over contrary descriptions in the complaint.
“Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, the works themselves supersede and control contrary descriptions of them, including any contrary allegations, conclusions or descriptions of the works contained in the pleadings.”
In one settlement-enforcement dispute, the court treated the parties' email agreement on material terms and their partial performance as evidence of a binding agreement, despite later negotiations over the wording of a formal release.
“contained all material terms of the settlement, including the monetary and injunctive relief,”
In a challenge to an Assistant U.S. Attorney’s removal, he read the Attorney General’s removal statute together with civil-service protections and rejected an at-will removal theory.
“Section 542(b) does not override the for-cause and due process protections of the CSRA”
Procedural preferences
In this Rule 12(b)(6) case, he drew the facts from the complaint and referenced documents and construed them in the plaintiff’s favor.
“The following facts, which are taken from the Complaint and documents it references, are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.”
In a post-discovery FLSA collective-action case, he denied the plaintiffs’ conditional-certification motion in full after considering the proposed group and supporting showing.
“Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED in its entirety.”
In one postconviction ruling, he dismissed a motion to vacate as premature while the direct appeal was pending, leaving the defendant able to file again after the appeal.
“Following that prudential approach here, the Court DISMISSES Thomas’s Section 2255 motion as premature.”
In one preliminary injunction, the court confined relief to the plaintiffs and the challenged enforcement conduct. It declined to enjoin the President or grant relief to people outside the case.
“declines Plaintiffs’ invitation to enter a ‘universal’ injunction and grants the same relief that it”
Cautions
In a defamation case involving church proceedings, he held that adjudicating the principal claim would violate the First Amendment because it required inquiry into ecclesiastical decisions.
“Their principal argument is that adjudicating Kavanagh's claims would require the Court or a jury to ‘interpret canonical procedure, standards, and decisions ... and thereby impermissibly entangle itself in matters of the ecclesiastical hiring and firing of a church's ministers, all of which would violate the religious liberty clauses to the First Amendment.’ ... The Court agrees that proceeding with Plaintiffs primary claim would violate the First Amendment.”
In an arbitration-award dispute, he confirmed the award despite troubling allegations of partiality because the challengers had waived some objections and lacked sufficient cognizable evidence for vacatur.
“If the Court were reviewing the award de novo or deciding the parties' disputes in the first instance, the Kleins' allegations might well warrant a different result. But the Court is required to give substantial deference to the arbitrators ... the Kleins either waived their challenges to the neutral arbitrator or have failed to present sufficient cognizable evidence to support vacatur.”
In Castro, the court imposed additional training on counsel after repeated failures to follow its orders, while declining sanctions based on conduct for which its show-cause order had not given notice.
“sanction is warranted for Mr. Saab’s repeated and flagrant violations of Court Orders”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court agrees that proceeding with Plaintiffs primary claim would violate the First Amendment. For that reason, and for the other reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons explained below, Citibank's motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Accordingly, Alstom's motions for summary judgment and to compel submission of the parties' dispute to the independent accounting firm are GRANTED, and GE's cross-motions for summary judgment and to compel arbitration before the ICC are DENIED.”
“GE's cross-motions for summary judgment and to compel arbitration before the ICC are DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and all of Antic’s claims were dismissed.”
“The LIRR now moves, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for summary judgment. (Docket No. 16). For the reasons that follow, the motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“the Court finds that all Plaintiffs in this suit—both named Plaintiffs and opt-in Plaintiffs—are independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA and the NYLL. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is granted, and the case is dismissed.”
“Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaration that the twelve named Plaintiffs are ‘employees’ for purposes of the FLSA ... the Court finds that all Plaintiffs in this suit—both named Plaintiffs and opt-in Plaintiffs—are independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA and the NYLL. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is granted, and the case is dismissed.”
“For the reasons stated below, Pinnacle's motion to dismiss is DENIED, and Morgan Stanley's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Morgan Stanley's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint. ... The Court agrees. Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED, and the Amended Complaint is dismissed.”
“the Court converts Defendants' motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and grants those motions.”
“the Court denies Plaintiffs motion for sanctions and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees and costs.”
“the Court ... grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees and costs.”
“Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 24). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.”
“Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rules 8 and 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendants move, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss all of McBeth's claims. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Two views. (1) Current assignments are recent and 2025-2026-heavy: a wave of alien-detainee habeas petitions (463), Schedule-A trademark enforcement, a qui tam (False Claims Act) action, a copyright suit, a federal criminal case, a Celsius Network bankruptcy appeal, and a foreign-sovereign matter (Republic of Niger): all pending. (2) A reach-back to terminated dockets shows that his major work is the multidistrict General Motors ignition-switch litigation he presided over for years (with many written dispositive rulings, two sampled below), while his ordinary individual civil dockets in the sample tended to resolve by settlement at the mediation stage rather than a contested ruling.
- Case durations below are from the terminated sample only, not a tenure-wide figure.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 15 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 13 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2020 | 8 | 20 |
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 Furman: 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 Furman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Furman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Furman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace