Loretta A. Preska
How Judge Preska rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Preska
Loretta A. Preska is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Preska received a commission on August 12, 1992. Judge Preska assumed senior status on March 1, 2017.
Judge Preska's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Preska, 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.
Key rules
Motions
Non-discovery civil motions generally require a pre-motion conference, subject to the listed exceptions.
“A. Pre-Motion Conference in Civil Cases For discovery motions, follow Local Civil Rule 37.2 (effective as of July 1, 2024). For motions other than discovery motions, a pre-motion conference with the Court is required before making any motion, except:”
Motions
A pre-motion conference request letter may not exceed 1,050 words, and the response is due within three business days.
“To arrange a pre-motion conference, the moving party shall submit a letter not to exceed 1,050 words setting forth the basis for the anticipated motion. Whereupon, the non-moving party shall, within 3 business days, submit a letter not to exceed 1,050 words setting forth its position with respect to the anticipated motion. The”
Conferences
Absent an emergency, request adjournments and extensions at least 48 hours before the deadline.
“E. Requests for Adjournments or Extensions of Time Absent an emergency, requests for adjournments or extensions of time shall be made at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled deadline. All requests for adjournments or extensions of time must state:”
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 Preska decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a summary-judgment case, she applied Local Civil Rule 56.1’s requirement that a party specifically controvert factual statements with citations to admissible evidence or have them deemed admitted for the motion.
“The facts set forth in the statement 'will be deemed to be admitted for purposes of the motion unless specifically controverted ... in the statement required to be served by the opposing party.' Local Civil Rule 56.1(c). Each statement by either party ... must be followed by citation to evidence which would be admissible.”
In Pine, Preska denied summary judgment for one doctor because conflicting accounts of a requested medication and a disputed office visit presented a credibility question for the jury.
“Whether Dr. Silverberg refused Mr. Pine's request and ejected him from the office, or whether no such request or removal ever occurred, is a question of credibility that the Court cannot resolve on this record, and must be left to the jury.”
Procedural preferences
In an SEC enforcement case, she denied motions to dismiss the complaint filed by five officer defendants.
“Currently pending before the Court are motions [dkt. nos. 17, 20, 24, 33, 35] to dismiss the Complaint filed by Dunn, Beatty, Pahapill, Gollogly and Hamilton. ... For the reasons set forth below, those motions are DENIED.”
In Hasthantra, Preska denied a request to serve a revised expert merits report after exclusion because the plaintiff had not acted diligently and another round would prolong the litigation and increase defense costs.
“In addition, the Court finds that allowing Plaintiff to attempt to remedy the Merits Report would prejudice Defendants by prolonging the litigation and increasing defense costs.”
Cautions
In a multiparty case, she granted CNA’s dismissal motion, granted Continental’s motion in part, and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion to strike in part.
“Defendant CNA's motion to dismiss is granted, Defendant Continental's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff PB's cross-motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part.”
In one fee award, she reduced claimed hours for vague, redundant, and administrative billing. Counsel seeking fees should give the court entries specific enough to assess the work performed.
“Plaintiffs’ counsel’s excessive, redundant, unnecessary, and vague billing requires an across-the-board reduction of the time for which they seek compensation.”
In a trademark declaratory judgment case, she dismissed without prejudice where registration proceedings and a single ambiguous statement during settlement discussions did not establish a sufficiently immediate threat of litigation. Counsel seeking declaratory relief should ground the asserted controversy in a concrete threat or demand.
“These cases stand for the proposition that isolated and ambiguous remarks between counsel in the course of ongoing registration and settlement discussions, especially those made in the midst of a TTAB proceeding, do not establish an Article III case or controversy under MedImmune.”
In an employment accommodation dispute, she precluded an employer’s undue hardship defense at summary judgment when it offered only a generalized declaration and no specific costs, staffing figures, or operational data. Counsel asserting that defense should support it with concrete business evidence.
“The Fund has failed to produce specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial with respect to the affirmative defense of undue hardship.”
In Mayard, Preska denied an untimely § 2255 motion after finding that the asserted prison restrictions and health effects did not establish equitable tolling on the record presented.
“Even assuming the truth of Mr. Mayard’s assertions, they do not warrant equitable tolling.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Currently pending before the Court are motions [dkt. nos. 17, 20, 24, 33, 35] to dismiss the Complaint filed by Dunn, Beatty, Pahapill, Gollogly and Hamilton. ... For the reasons set forth below, those motions are DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendant CNA's motion to dismiss is granted, Defendant Continental's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff PB's cross-motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendant Continental's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part”
“Plaintiff PB's cross-motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the reasons set forth below, LPHI's motion for partial summary judgment [dkt. no. 35] is granted in part and denied in part, and Maxim's cross-motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 40] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Maxim's cross-motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 40] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Conciliate [dkt. no. 103] is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Time-Barred Claims [dkt. no. 99] is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety.”
“For the foregoing reasons, SME’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Leave to amend is GRANTED solely”
“Adjmi’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [dkt. no. 34] is GRANTED.”
“Merrill’s motion to dismiss Cellular South’s First Amended Complaint [dkt. no. 203 in 09 MD 2030] is granted in its entirety and with prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment [dkt. no. 284] is hereby GRANTED, and Defendant Continental’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment [dkt. no. 291] is hereby DENIED.”
“Bloomberg’s motion [dkt. no. 574] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 19] is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 28] is accordingly DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Defendants' motion to dismiss [dkt. no. 12][12] is GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The visible docket slice is current and 2026-heavy and strikingly copyright/IP-weighted: multiple copyright suits (including CNN v. Perplexity AI, an AI-training copyright matter), trademark, plus civil-rights jobs, commercial contract, marine contract, and a criminal docket.
- Reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload. (Judge Preska took senior status in 2017, so her historical caseload is far larger than this current-assignment view suggests.)
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 | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 31 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 31 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 32 |
| Mar 2025 | 10 | 33 |
| Sep 2024 | 12 | 30 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 32 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 33 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 39 |
| Sep 2022 | 10 | 33 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 46 |
| Sep 2021 | 7 | 41 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 50 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 54 |
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 Preska: 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 Preska with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Preska, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Preska's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace