Kelley Brisbon Hodge
How Judge Hodge rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hodge
Kelley Brisbon Hodge is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Hodge received a commission on December 23, 2022.
Judge Hodge's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hodge, 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
Send scheduling and administrative requests as letters attached to email; a bare email request will not be considered.
“Judge Hodge permits communications with Chambers by telephone, or letter sent via email regarding scheduling and other non-substantive matters. An email request without a letter will not be considered.”
Filing
Provide a mailed or delivered courtesy copy for any submission of at least 25 pages, including exhibits.
“Parties must provide one (1) courtesy copy to the Court of any document submitted which is twenty-five (25) pages or more, including exhibits.”
Motions
Confer verbally with opposing counsel at least seven days before filing any motion.
“This conference shall take place at least seven (7) days before the filing of the motion. The parties shall conduct substantive verbal communications.”
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 Hodge decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Butler v. Upper Merion Township, she held at the pleading stage that the officers needed to be aware of a risk of violence, without foreseeing the specific shooting. She also found that their alleged restriction on Butler leaving and their unfulfilled promise to canvass could satisfy the affirmative action element of his state-created danger claim.
“To demonstrate that he was a foreseeable victim, Butler need only establish that the Defendants had 'awareness of a risk of violence or harm,' not that the Officers foresaw the specific circumstances of his shooting. ... Plaintiff need not prove that Defendants knew that Mayo was responsible ... nor that Mayo's actions would escalate in violence and severity.”
In Butler v. Upper Merion Township, Hodge denied the officers qualified immunity at the pleading stage on a state-created-danger claim. She found the complaint plausibly alleged a due-process violation and that the right was clearly established in the circuit.
“The state-created danger doctrine has been 'thoroughly explored and defined' in the thirty-five years since DeShaney ... This Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts such that 'every reasonable official would have understood that what he [was] doing violate[d] [the right to due process].' ... Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity.”
Procedural preferences
In Joseph v. Pepperidge Farm Inc., she granted a partial dismissal motion by dismissing the race discrimination claims without prejudice and the age discrimination claims with prejudice. She gave the plaintiff until April 1, 2024 to file an amended complaint as outlined in the accompanying memorandum.
“Plaintiff's race discrimination claims raised in Counts I, III, and V are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Plaintiff's age discrimination claims raised in Counts VII and VIII are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint ... on or before April 1, 2024.”
Cautions
In Butler v. Upper Merion Township, she dismissed the municipal liability claim because the complaint did not plead facts showing a deliberate decision not to train or supervise officers. She also dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against the township under municipal tort immunity.
“merely alleging in a boilerplate fashion that the Township had a policy of minimally investigating domestic disturbances is insufficient to demonstrate that the Township made a 'deliberate' or 'conscious' decision not to train or supervise. ... Thus, Plaintiff's claim fails.”
In the Sandusky debt-collection case, the complaint did not link the alleged financial harm to the challenged collection statements, so the FDCPA claim failed for lack of Article III standing.
“But Plaintiff does not plead any facts connecting her receipt of the allegedly false or misleading debt collection communications with any tangible losses she sustained, such as payments made on the improperly inflated debt amounts.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.”
“The Commonwealth Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Court's accompanying Memorandum.”
“The Court grants the Motion as to Count II as to both Defendants. The Court denies the Motion as to Counts I and III as to both Defendants. As for Count VII and Plaintiff's request for punitive damages, the Court grants the Motion as to the Township Defendant and denies the Motion as to the Officer Defendants.”
“Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's race discrimination claims is GRANTED. Plaintiff's race discrimination claims raised in Counts I, III, and V are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2. Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's age discrimination claims is GRANTED. Plaintiff's age discrimination claims raised in Counts VII and VIII are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's [PHRA] claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint ... on or before April 1, 2024.”
“Defendant IMS's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall mark IMS TERMINATED from the case.”
“Defendant Leonard's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. a. The Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II is DENIED. b. Counts III and V are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. c. Count VI is DISMISSED; Plaintiff is granted leave to amend this claim within 14 days of this Order.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court Clerk shall mark this matter as CLOSED.”
“1. Defendant Royal White Cement's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 29 and 31) is DENIED.”
“2. Plaintiff Horizon Stevedoring, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Five Below's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in its entirety.”
“The Motions to Exclude Douglas Hollon are GRANTED. Testimony and opinions of Douglas Hollon are hereby excluded from trial.”
“Defendant Nelnet's Summary Judgment Motion is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment are DENIED.”
“Defendants Equifax, TransUnion, LVNV, Resurgent, and First Premier's Summary Judgment Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“the Court denies Wawa's Motion to Compel Claims Communications from FI Plaintiffs”
“denies FI Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order and Response in Opposition to Wawa's Motion as moot.”
“Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:”
“The Petition is GRANTED. The Government shall PROVIDE Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or otherwise RELEASE Petitioner”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 337 days (N = 5).
- Judge Hodge joined the court in December 2022 and inherited several long-running matters, including the In re Wawa data-security litigation, insurance-coverage disputes, antitrust and racketeering claims, commercial-contract cases, employment civil-rights suits, and prisoner litigation.
- Matters filed during her tenure include a substantial group of immigration habeas and mandamus cases.
- Among the reviewed examples, Cox v. SEPTA ran from October 18, 2021, to December 26, 2024, and 1228 Investment Group v. Hub Group ran from March 5, 2021, to February 6, 2025.
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 | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 19 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 32 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 34 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 23 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
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 Hodge: 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 Hodge with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hodge, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hodge's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace