Kimba Maureen Wood
How Judge Wood rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wood
Kimba Maureen Wood is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Wood received a commission on April 20, 1988. Judge Wood assumed senior status on June 1, 2009.
Judge Wood's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wood, 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 ↗
- Model Discovery Plan ↗
- RICO Statement ↗
- Scheduling Order ↗
- Trial Procedures and Jury Selection ↗
Key rules
Filing
Submit one marked courtesy set of all motion papers.
“Courtesy Copies One set of all motion papers, marked as such, should be submitted to the Court in accordance with the S.D.N.Y. policies regarding hand deliveries or mail deliveries. The”
Motions
For most non-discovery motions, the court requests a pre-motion conference as a courtesy, subject to the listed exceptions.
“Pre-Motion Conferences in Civil Cases For motions other than discovery motions, the Court requests, as a courtesy to the Court, that a litigant seek a pre-motion conference with the Court before making any motion, except:”
Discovery
After conferring, raise a discovery dispute by an ECF letter-motion no longer than three pages.
“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 may file on ECF a letter- motion to the Court, no longer than three (3) pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and requesting an informal conference. Such a letter must include a”
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 Wood decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Wood has enforced oral agreements under New York law absent a clear intent to be bound only by a writing; partial performance and complete negotiation of terms can carry a contract claim past the pleading stage.
“under New York law, oral agreements are binding and enforceable absent a clear expression of the parties' intent to be bound only by a writing.”
In Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, Judge Wood applied trial admissibility principles to expert evidence at summary judgment and denied the defendants' motions to exclude the plaintiffs' experts.
“The Court determines the admissibility of the challenged evidence based on the same principles as would apply at trial.”
In Myun-Uk Choi v. Tower Research Capital LLC, Judge Wood dismissed the amended Commodity Exchange Act claim because the plaintiffs had not alleged a sufficient connection to a U.S. exchange or U.S. transaction under Morrison.
“Plaintiffs have still failed to allege a sufficient nexus with a U.S. exchange or a U.S. financial transaction to justify a claim under Morrison.”
Procedural preferences
At the pleading stage, Wood confines review to the complaint and does not consider an outside document unless the plaintiff relied on it and it is integral to the pleading.
“On a motion to dismiss, a court may consider a document other than an exhibit to a complaint only if it is one on which the plaintiff ‘solely relies and which is integral to the complaint.’”
In Stonewell Corp. v. Conestoga Title Insurance Co., Judge Wood granted summary judgment on two malpractice claims but denied it on a third claim concerning an alleged failure to convey a settlement offer.
“the Court GRANTS Dollinger's motion for summary judgment with respect to its first and third claims. The motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Stonewell's second claim.”
Cautions
In one contempt proceeding, the court ordered gross-revenue disgorgement for work forbidden by an injunction because the defendant could not show legitimate expenses from that prohibited business. An expense-offset argument needs proof that the expenses were lawful and attributable.
“Because Defendant cannot demonstrate any legitimate expenses associated with his tax preparation services, ‘[d]isgorgement of gross revenues is appropriate[.]’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the claim against LW of inducement of copyright infringement, and DENIES LW's motion for summary judgment on the claim”
“the Court: (1) DENIES Defendants' motions to exclude evidence”
“the Court GRANTS Dollinger's motion for summary judgment with respect to its first and third claims. The motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Stonewell's second claim.”
“For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion in part and DENIES it in part. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiffs' claims of (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The Court DENIES Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiffs' claims of (1) Unfair Competition, (2) Unjust Enrichment, and (3) Tortious Interference with Contract.”
“For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as to the District; and GRANTED as to the individual Defendants.”
“Defendants Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc., Golda Tour I, L.P., David Fishelson, and Fishelson Productions, Inc. move to dismiss this action by Plaintiff Anna Pearce, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). ... For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Count I (extrajudicial killings), Count V (rights to life, liberty, security and association), Count VI (forced exile), and Count VII (property destruction), and is denied as to Count II (crimes against humanity), Count III (torture), and Count IV (arbitrary arrest and detention).”
“For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Defendants' motion.”
“Third-party defendants moved to dismiss the underlying complaint against the contractor and the third-party complaint. ... For the reasons stated below, the Court grants all motions to dismiss.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“as to Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Defendants' motion. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA, but that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to compensation for any alleged late payment of wages.”
“as to Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Defendants' motion.”
“Both parties have moved for summary judgment. ... For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with the Report, and summary judgment is denied.”
“For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with the Report, and summary judgment is denied.”
“Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV recommended that I grant plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment to the extent of dismissing defendants’ affirmative defenses based on limitation of liability under the Convention and that plaintiffs motion otherwise be denied. ... I adopt Magistrate Judge Francis’ Report in its entirety.”
“The Magistrate Judge further recommended that defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment be denied in their entirety. ... I adopt Magistrate Judge Francis’ Report in its entirety.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed 2024-2025 assignments include a substantial self-represented prisoner, habeas, and civil-rights docket, with many matters ending at the fee-application or screening stage. This recent sample differs from the counseled commercial, intellectual-property, and employment matters represented in the published-opinion set.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 7 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 5 |
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 Wood: 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 Wood with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wood, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wood's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace