Gerald John Pappert
How Judge Pappert rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pappert
Gerald John Pappert is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Pappert received a commission on December 4, 2014.
Judge Pappert's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pappert, 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
Direct case telephone calls to the courtroom deputy; do not contact law clerks directly.
“Direct communication with law clerks is prohibited.”
Filing
A filing prepared with generative AI must disclose its use, identify the generated portions and tool, and certify that citations were verified.
“(1) disclose that generative artificial intelligence was used to prepare the filing; (2) identify precisely what portion or portions of the document contain the generated content; (3) identify the specific tool used and how it was used; and (4) certify that each any every citation to the law or the record in the filing was verified as accurate”
Conferences
Counsel may not use cell phones during telephone conferences with the court.
“Counsel may not use cell phones on any telephone conferences with the Court.”
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 Pappert decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In this case, he granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss count four.
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to count four.”
In a single order, he dismissed count I with prejudice and count II without prejudice.
“Count I is DISMISSED with prejudice, and Count II is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
In Montano-Gordillo's detention case, Pappert denied reconsideration and declined to decide the petitioner's due process claims after granting relief under the immigration statute and ordering a bond hearing.
“A longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.”
In Travelers’ insurance coverage action, he denied a Rule 19 dismissal motion because the possibility of a later suit by the absent insured did not prevent complete relief between the insurers already before the court.
“The effect on absent parties is immaterial.”
Procedural preferences
In Clemens, he allowed the plaintiff to amend the dismissed claims by July 13, 2023.
“Clemens may amend her Complaint with respect to the dismissed claims no later than July 13, 2023.”
In Aramark, the court dismissed one count without prejudice and allowed amendment if the plaintiffs could plead a plausible claim.
“They may also amend Count V to the extent they can allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.”
Cautions
In a statutory-penalty case, he dismissed with prejudice claims based on alleged suspicious-order reporting violations before October 24, 2018.
“All claims for civil penalties for Defendants’ alleged violations of the suspicious order reporting requirement prior to October 24, 2018 are dismissed with prejudice.”
In a suit against Barclays, he found personal jurisdiction lacking, granted the motion on that basis, and dismissed the claims without prejudice.
“Because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Barclays, the Court grants Barclays's motion on that basis and dismisses his claims without prejudice.”
In one insurance coverage case, Pappert denied further amendment after finding the pleaded accident could not fall within the vehicle policy. A proposed amendment must address the policy’s coverage terms, not merely restate the accident.
“Safety First’s well-pleaded facts do not, and could not, invoke coverage under its insurance policy, so amendment would be futile.”
In Milestone, Pappert found that conclusory allegations about the insurer’s investigation and denial did not support a bad faith claim, while allowing amendment.
“facts regarding Milestone’s claim and Progressive’s investigation, communication”
In Wesselt, Pappert held that alleged false testimony in another lawsuit did not itself establish abuse of process.
“A litigation adversary’s alleged ‘lying’ under oath does not, ipso facto,”
In Sawicki, Pappert reduced an attorney-fee request because the invoices did not identify two people whose communications were billed to the case. He excluded 1.7 hours for those entries.
“So the Court excludes the 1.7 hours related to Hartline and Gehly.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to count four. Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED as to counts one, two, and three.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 9), is DENIED.”
“the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum; Counts Two, Five, Six and all claims against Paraxel are DISMISSED without prejudice; and Clemens may amend her Complaint with respect to the dismissed claims no later than July 13, 2023.”
“it is ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part consistent with the accompanying Memorandum. All claims for civil penalties for Defendants' alleged violations of the suspicious order reporting requirement prior to October 24, 2018 are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Jordan's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 56) is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Jordan and against Gonzalez on all claims. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.”
“the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. Count I is DISMISSED with prejudice, and Count II is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Motion to Dismiss Counts III through V is DENIED. ... 4. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint consistent with the accompanying memorandum on or before June 16, 2026.”
“There is no basis to disqualify Zingarini.”
“The Court denies the Blechers' motion and grants Posh's.”
“The Court grants the motion in part, sets aside the default judgment as to Lamy and Peters but not IMS”
“The Court grants accordingly the EEOC's application for enforcement and orders Penn to respond to the subpoena, though without revealing any employee's affiliation with a specific organization.”
“The Court grants the motions and dismisses all claims against the moving defendants without prejudice”
“but denies, at least for now, enjoining 325 S. 18th Street, LLC and Adams as vexatious litigants.”
On 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) screening the court dismissed a pro se prisoner complaint on claim-preclusion grounds: "dismiss his Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. Amendment would be futile."
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 322 days (N = 7).
The reviewed 2019 filings include a substantial number of habeas and self-represented matters, along with fraud, employment, life-insurance, data-breach, controlled-substances, and prisoner civil-rights cases.
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 | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 12 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 12 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 13 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 14 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 20 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 13 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 10 |
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 Pappert: 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 Pappert with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pappert, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pappert's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace