John R. Padova
How Judge Padova rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Padova
John R. Padova received his commission as a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in March 1992 and assumed senior status in February 2008. He earned degrees from Villanova University and Temple University School of Law and previously practiced law in Philadelphia.
Judge Padova's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Padova, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Direct telephone inquiries to the courtroom deputy; the judge discourages calls to law clerks.
“Judge Padova strongly discourages communication with his law clerks. All telephone inquiries should be directed to Judge Padova’s deputy.”
Contacting chambers
Use letters only in the specified circumstances; other communications require a filed pleading or motion.
“All other communications with the Court should be made by the filing of pleadings, motions, applications, briefs, or legal memoranda.”
Motions
Send one bound or stapled courtesy copy of motion papers to chambers.
“Judge Padova requires that one courtesy copy of motion papers be sent to his chambers. Courtesy copies shall be stapled or neatly bound, with dividers between the exhibits.”
Motions
Seek leave to file a reply or surreply within 14 days of the preceding filing and attach the proposed brief.
“Reply and surreply briefs may only be filed with leave of the Court. A motion for leave to file a reply or surreply brief must be filed within fourteen days of the previous filing, and counsel shall attach as an exhibit the proposed reply or surreply brief.”
Motions
File notice of intent to amend a pleading within the 14 day response period for a motion to dismiss.
“Any party who intends to amend a pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 must file a notice of intent to do so within the 14-day period for responding to a motion to dismiss.”
Motions
For most summary judgment motions, meet and confer on material facts at least 14 days before filing.
“Except in matters in which a pro se prisoner is a party, the parties shall meet and confer about the material facts no later than fourteen days prior to the filing of any summary judgment motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.”
Motions
Request an extension or continuance in writing before a deadline expires and show cause; an agreement still needs court approval.
“Any request for an extension or continuance shall be made in writing by letter or formal motion for cause shown. If there is an agreement, a stipulation of counsel should be submitted; however, Court approval is required.”
Discovery
Use a telephone conference to try to resolve discovery disputes; unresolved disputes require a motion to compel.
“When a discovery dispute occurs, and counsel have been unable to resolve it themselves or with Judge Padova’s assistance by telephone, he requires a motion to compel.”
Conferences
Submit the scheduling information report and Rule 26(f) discovery plan to chambers at least three business days before the initial pretrial conference.
“At least three business days before the pretrial conference, counsel must submit to chambers a completed Scheduling Information Report.”
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 Padova decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At the pleading stage, allegations that student athletes performed work under conditions resembling employment were sufficient to proceed.
“we conclude that the Complaint plausibly alleges that Plaintiffs are employees of the ASD under the Glatt test.”
In the FMLA pleading dispute, the alleged pressure to avoid leave made an interference claim plausible before discovery.
“we cannot conclude at this early stage of the proceedings, before any discovery has been conducted, that no reasonable jury could find that Defendants’ alleged conduct in this case discouraged Diorio from taking family medical leave.”
In one immigration detention case, the court found a due process violation where the government had not made a timely individualized custody decision, and it ordered the petitioner released.
“We therefore conclude that Saint Cloud’s procedural due process rights have been violated by his detention since September 21, 2026, without being afforded a timely, individualized custody determination.”
Procedural preferences
For a removed case, proper service and the forum defendant rule controlled the remand outcome.
“Defendant’s removal clearly violated the forum defendant rule, and was procedurally improper.”
Cautions
The court dismissed an unexhausted disability counterclaim without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds.
“Since Defendants failed to exhaust the claims asserted in Count II of the Counterclaim, we lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear them.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“we grant United’s Motion to Dismiss to the extent that it seeks dismissal with prejudice of the claims against it in Counts I, III, and IV but deny the Motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of the claims against United in Count II.”
“we grant FSG’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice as to the claims against FSG in Counts I, III, and IV and grant the Motion without prejudice as to the claim against FSG in Count II.”
“we grant the Motion to Dismiss as to Counts I and II of the Complaint and deny it as to Counts III through VII.”
“For the reasons that follow, we grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.”
“we grant Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay this Action.”
“We therefore grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand and remand the case to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.”
“we deny the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.”
“we deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.”
“both Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“we grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Count II of Defendants’ Counterclaim without prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs’ request to remand is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
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 | 15 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 15 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 8 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Padova: 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 Padova with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Padova, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Padova's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace