Paul Adam Engelmayer
How Judge Engelmayer rules, drawn from 62 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Engelmayer
Paul Adam Engelmayer is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Engelmayer received a commission on July 27, 2011.
Judge Engelmayer's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Engelmayer, 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 ↗
- Individual Rules And Practices In Civil Cases ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice for Sentencing Proceedings ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Pro Se Cases ↗
- Individual Rules of Practice in Criminal Cases ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not submit courtesy copies unless the court orders otherwise.
“E. 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 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.K below.”
Discovery
After conferring, raise a discovery dispute by an ECF letter of at most three single-spaced pages.
“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, the party must submit a letter to the Court via ECF, no longer than three single-spaced pages, explaining the nature of the dispute,”
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 Engelmayer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Matrix Laboratories Ltd., Judge Engelmayer found a prima facie basis for personal jurisdiction but dismissed the contract claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because the complaint did not state a breach of the agreement's terms.
“the Court finds that BMS has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. However, Matrix’s motion to dismiss is granted because the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim.”
In Johnson v. Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Engelmayer denied the paving contractors’ motion to dismiss the workers’ prevailing wage contract and alternative quasi contract claims and granted conditional FLSA certification.
“the Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss and grants plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification.”
In Pilabre, Engelmayer compelled arbitration of staffing agencies’ indemnification and contribution cross-claims under an agreement covering disputes related to their services. The stay applied to those cross-claims; the employees’ wage claims remained on schedule.
“the Court grants the Parts Authority defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of the DRA defendants’ cross-claims.”
Procedural preferences
In Begonja v. Vornado Realty Trust, Judge Engelmayer stayed the discrimination action and referred all claims to arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement, while denying a fee request.
“the Court stays this action, refers all claims brought in the Complaint to arbitration, and denies the request for fees.”
In PNC Bank, National Ass'n v. Wolters Kluwer Financial Services, Inc., Judge Engelmayer granted summary judgment against the damages PNC had sought because the parties' agreements barred consequential damages, while allowing amendment to assert a general damages theory.
“grants WKFS's motion for summary judgment as to the damages sought by PNC, on the grounds that the damages PNC has pursued to date are all consequential damages barred under the parties' agreements.”
In Tensyr’s Madoff recovery appeal, Engelmayer denied leave to appeal an interlocutory bankruptcy ruling on personal jurisdiction. He found the proposed issues fact dependent and concluded that immediate review was unlikely to speed the litigation.
“There is thus little likelihood that an interlocutory appeal would speed up this litigation.”
In Maxwell, Engelmayer denied two representatives’ request to participate as amici to seek records-disclosure oversight because the request would introduce an issue no party had raised in the criminal case.
“amici curiae cannot make independent motions or inject new issues that have not been pursued by any party or raised by the Court.”
Cautions
In Johnson v. Burns, Engelmayer denied a Rule 50(b) request for judgment as a matter of law because an inconsistent jury verdict did not satisfy that standard. He separately set aside the inconsistent false arrest verdict and ordered a new trial on that claim.
“An inconsistent verdict is a possible ground for a new trial, but not for entry of judgment as a matter of law.”
In a digital-asset securities case, summary judgment resolved only statutory seller status for different transaction types. The court left the status of the tokens and other claim elements for further proceedings.
“This litigation will proceed on these claims, with discovery to resume on the remaining elements of these claims, including whether the tokens at issue qualify as securities.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons that follow, the Court (1) denies in part, and grants in part, Braskem's and Fadigas's motion to dismiss; (2) grants Gradin's motion to dismiss; and (3) grants Odebrecht's motion to dismiss.”
“the Court (1) denies in part, and grants in part, Braskem's and Fadigas's motion to dismiss; (2) grants Gradin's motion to dismiss; and (3) grants Odebrecht's motion to dismiss.”
“Vitro now moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). ... For the reasons that follow, Vitro's Rule 12(b)(1) motion is denied.”
“Separately, Vitro moves to dismiss Duff & Phelps' claim for unjust enrichment under Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons given below, that motion is also denied.”
“the Court (1) denies PNC's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract and breach of warranty claims”
“(2) grants WKFS's motion for summary judgment on all of PNC's other claims, ie., its quasi-contract and non-contract claims, and (3) grants WKFS's motion for summary judgment as to the damages sought by PNC, on the grounds that the damages PNC has pursued to date are all consequential damages barred under the parties' agreements.”
“the Court (1) denies Pret's motion to strike; (2) grants conditional certification for plaintiffs' claims of overtime violations, limited to six Pret locations in New York City, but denies certification based on allegations of non-overtime off-the-clock work and alleged tip-pooling violations; and (3) approves court-facilitated notice for the six Pret locations”
“Several parties have now moved for judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons that follow, the Court holds that the first offer to buy the collateral was not valid, and that Wells Fargo therefore is not required (or authorized) to sell the collateral in question in response to the second offer.”
“ABC has now moved to dismiss Taft’s whistleblower claim. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is granted with leave to replead.”
“the Court finds that BMS has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. However, Matrix’s motion to dismiss is granted because the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim.”
“Defendants John Sederakis and Sabrina Brown (collectively, ‘defendants’) again move to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants that motion.”
“the franchisor defendants moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss the First Amended Complaint as to them, asserting that the it had failed to plausibly plead that the franchisor defendants were ‘joint employers’ for purposes of the FLSA or NYLL. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied,”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss and grants plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification.”
“Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to a mandatory arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement; defendants also seek to recover attorneys’ fees. For the following reasons, the Court stays this action, refers all claims brought in the Complaint to arbitration, and denies the request for fees.”
“The parties have filed cross — motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons that follow, both motions are denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
A recent assignment sample includes alien-detainee habeas petitions, trademark, labor, and fraud matters. Four terminated civil cases filed in 2018–2019 provide case-duration observations. These selected matters do not represent the judge’s full caseload.
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 | 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 | 25 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 25 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 25 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 9 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 11 |
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 Engelmayer: 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 Engelmayer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Engelmayer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Engelmayer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace