Joel H. Slomsky
How Judge Slomsky rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Slomsky
Joel Harvey Slomsky is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Slomsky received a commission on October 6, 2008. Judge Slomsky assumed senior status on October 9, 2018.
Judge Slomsky's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Slomsky, 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.
- Courtroom and Trial Procedures ↗
- Procedures in Criminal Cases ↗
- Scheduling and Motion Policies and Procedures ↗
- Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting ↗
- Order Governing Electronic Discovery ↗
- Form - Speedy Trial Act Acknowledgment of Rights ↗
- Request for Advance Authorization for Investigative, Expert or Other Services ↗
Key rules
Trial
For cases in the trial pool, be ready to start trial on 48 hours notice.
“For cases in the trial pool, counsel shall be prepared to commence trial upon 48 hours notice.”
Trial
Do not make speaking objections; state the rule number or a one-word basis.
“Judge Slomsky does not permit speaking objections. Objections shall be made by reciting the appropriate rule number or a one word basis.”
Trial
File motions in limine by the deadline in the scheduling order.
“Motions in limine must be filed by the deadline set in the Scheduling Order.”
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 Slomsky decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Glover, Judge Slomsky held a hearing on a contested dismissal motion and then ordered supplemental briefing before deciding the close pleading question.
“ORDER THAT A HEARING ON THE MOTION WILL BE HELD ON JULY 6, 2023 ... SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ... [later] ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS BY AUGUST 3, 2023.”
In this case, he issued an order denying the motion to dismiss in accordance with a same-day opinion explaining the ruling.
“in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED.”
Cautions
In this case, he granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and directed the clerk to close the case.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9) is DISMISSED with prejudice. ... The Clerk of Court shall close this case for statistical purposes.”
In Mason, removal was premature when the cited pre-removal emails did not state damages with enough specificity to show the federal amount in controversy. The court granted remand on that procedural defect.
“their Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) was premature and therefore procedurally defective.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED. Defendant shall file an Answer to the Complaint by August 28, 2024.”
“it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 48) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 44) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Summary judgment is DENIED on Count I of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 34). 2. Summary judgment is GRANTED on Count III of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 34).”
“1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED. 2. The Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“3. Plaintiff's Motion for a Jury Trial (Doc. No. 39) is DENIED as moot. ... Since the Amended Complaint is being dismissed, a jury trial will not occur. Therefore, the Motion for a Jury Trial (Doc. No. 39) will be denied as moot.”
“1. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. Nos. 2, 7) are GRANTED. 2. The Clerk of Court shall close this case for statistical purposes.”
“1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 98) is DENIED.”
“2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 99) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's hostile work environment and disparate pay claims ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's gender discrimination claim under Title VII ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's [PHRA] claims ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim under Title VII ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's disability discrimination and retaliation claims brought under the [ADA].”
“1. Defendant Mary Walk's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED.”
“2. Defendants Borough of Ridley Park and Richard Tutak's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED.”
“3. Defendants Michelle Portnoff and Robert P. Daday's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 15) is GRANTED.”
“4. Defendant Barry C. Dozor's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED. 5. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED.”
“2. Defendants' Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED. 3. The above-captioned matter shall be TRANSFERRED to the District Court of Puerto Rico.”
“1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED ... Because his Complaint is being dismissed for failure to state a claim, and any attempt to amend the Complaint would be futile”
“Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 40, 42) are GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims in the Amended Complaint are DISMISSED. (Doc. No. 40)”
“Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 40, 42) are GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims in the Amended Complaint are DISMISSED. (Doc. No. 42)”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's age discrimination claim under the [ADEA] and [PHRA] ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the ADEA and PHRA ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's disability discrimination claims under the [ADA] and PHRA ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's ADA and PHRA failure to accommodate claim ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the ADA and PHRA”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 165 days (N = 2).
Judge Slomsky's reviewed 2021 and 2023 filings include consumer-credit, insurance, contract, civil-rights, habeas, medical-malpractice, and criminal matters. As a senior judge, he also handles older reassigned cases. One reviewed civil-rights case lasted about 963 days before dismissal following rulings on dismissal and summary-judgment motions.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 4 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 7 |
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 Slomsky: 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 Slomsky with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Slomsky, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Slomsky's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace