Gerald Austin McHugh Jr.
How Judge McHugh rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McHugh
Gerald Austin McHugh, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge McHugh received a commission on March 28, 2014.
Judge McHugh's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge McHugh, 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
Contacting chambers
File any communication on a substantive issue on the electronic docket.
“Any communication addressing a substantive issue should also be filed on ECF”
Filing
Email agreed deadline extension stipulations to chambers for approval.
“If counsel agree to extend a specific deadline, they should email a Stipulation to Chambers and cite these Guidelines.”
Discovery
Begin discovery as the rules permit, without waiting for the Rule 16 conference.
“Parties should begin discovery as soon as permitted under the relevant Rules, without waiting for the Rule 16 Conference to be held.”
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).
- Standing Order on Procedure for Case Opening ↗
- Standing Order on Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Access and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Filing Procedures in Alien Detainee Cases ↗
- Second Amended Standing Order on Guilty Pleas and Sentencing ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Document Submission for Unrepresented Litigants ↗
- Standing Procedural Order for Cases Seeking Social Security Review ↗
- Superseding Standing Order on Procedural Matters in Pro Se Civil and Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Access to Civil and Criminal Transcripts ↗
How Judge McHugh decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Gil v. United States, McHugh gave Tax Court opinions added weight on the worker-classification question because of that court’s expertise.
“I consider Tax Court opinions on this question to be persuasive authority akin to that of another district court opinion but carrying additional weight due to the Tax Court's expertise.”
In a discrimination pleading, he declined to treat the plaintiff’s allegations against these defendants as limited to a class-of-one theory and did not decide whether that theory remained valid.
“I see no need to address the continued validity of this theory of liability because I do not view Plaintiff's allegations against these Defendants as being so narrow in scope.”
Procedural preferences
In a removed case, he held that remand was required because Berenato was a forum defendant and could not remove the action on diversity grounds.
“remand is required here because Berenato is a forum defendant and he may not remove this case.”
Cautions
A court-approved stipulation does not become a judicial ruling on a withdrawn preliminary-injunction motion. He allowed defamation-related counterclaims to proceed where public statements described the agreement as an injunction awarded by the court.
“LOA is correct that I never ruled on the motion, let alone granted it, because Stata withdrew the motion via the joint stipulation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because I conclude as a matter of law that Plaintiff was an employee under the controlling legal test, the Government's motion for summary judgment will be granted, and the taxpayer's denied.”
“the Government's motion for summary judgment will be granted, and the taxpayer's denied.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Complaint will be denied.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 12) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 14, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“The Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and this case will be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“For the reasons discussed above, I will grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs are entitled to $8,169,919.01 on Count I, and $447,315.73 on Count II.”
During statutory screening of a self-represented complaint, the court dismissed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims with prejudice and the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state contract claims without prejudice. No party motion was involved.
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 9) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ federal claims in the Amended Complaint (Counts I-V) are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ state law claims (Counts VI-VIII) are DISMISSED without prejudice, permitting Plaintiffs to pursue these claims in state court.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 13, is DENIED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED as to Count II of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, ECF 7, regarding the RICO claim against Defendant Tracy Young which is DISMISSED without prejudice. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 17) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. As to Declaratory Judgment (Count II), the motion is GRANTED. 2. As to Plaintiff’s allegations of Fraud (Count III), the motion is GRANTED under the theory of good faith and fair dealing and DENIED in part ... 3. As to claims under the Lanham Act (Count IV), the motion is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 12) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... granted as to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim related to the denial of his opportunity to appeal his dismissal ... In all other respects Defendant’s Motion is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Judge McHugh's civil docket includes personal-injury and pharmaceutical-product cases, employment and civil-rights disputes, insurance and declaratory-judgment actions, benefits and consumer-credit claims, copyright matters, prisoner litigation, Social Security appeals, and special-education cases.
- He also presides over United States v. Safehouse, concerning a proposed supervised-injection site in Philadelphia.
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 | 6 |
| 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 | 8 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 6 | 8 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 15 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 13 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 12 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 8 |
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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge McHugh: 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 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,952 | 3.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,834 | 4.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 898 | 10 months |
| Closed during trial | 46 | 17.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,200 | 4.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,595 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,221 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 5,245 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,686 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,374 | 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 McHugh with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McHugh, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McHugh's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace