Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro

How Judge Alejandro rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Position
District judge
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
June 19, 2013
ABA rating
Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified
Education
University of Puerto Rico (B.B.A., cum laude, 1972); University of Puerto Rico School of Law (J.D., 1975)
Signed orders read
30

About Judge Alejandro

Nitza Ileana Quiñones Alejandro is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Quiñones Alejandro received a commission on June 19, 2013.

Judge Alejandro's practices and standing orders

The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Alejandro's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

How Judge Alejandro decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In an insurance-coverage case, she found that the alleged injury arose from conduct identified in a policy exclusion despite negligence allegations against Harmony.

“Despite Plaintiff’s assertion of negligence claims against Harmony, the ultimate injury connected to these claims (the death of Ms. Fidalgo) is alleged to be caused by the ‘actual or alleged act, error, omission of . . . David Frankel.’”

In a product case, she found a sufficient connection among Pennsylvania, the moving defendants’ forum contacts, and the plaintiffs’ claims to support specific jurisdiction.

“As such, there exists a sufficient affiliation between Pennsylvania, Moving Defendants' contacts with this forum, and Plaintiffs claims.”

Procedural preferences

In Stokes’s civil-rights case, she granted dismissal of the due-process and conspiracy counts only as to theories tied to alleged fabrication of evidence in the perjury prosecution.

“The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes’ § 1983 claims for deprivation of liberty without due process and for civil rights conspiracy (Counts II and III), but only with respect to those claims related to Defendant’s alleged participation in the fabrication of evidence used in the perjury prosecution against Franklin Lee;”

Cautions

In Shiloh, Quiñones Alejandro declined to compel records from entities that the government had not shown were under the defendant’s control.

“such records and information fall outside the scope of Rule 34(a)(1).”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Marshall-Lee v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
2:18-cv-02333 · 2018-10-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Motion is GRANTED. ... The FTCA's limited waiver of the United States' sovereign immunity does not extend to Plaintiff's claims against the United States, and, thus, those claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Wilson v. Ethicon, Inc.
2:19-cv-01905 · 2019-12-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. ... there exists a sufficient affiliation between Pennsylvania, Moving Defendants' contacts with this forum, and Plaintiff's claims.”

Motions to transfer (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' alternative motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.”

Stokes v. City of Philadelphia
2:22-cv-00338 · 2022-08-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes' malicious prosecution claims filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania state law (Counts I and VII); The motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Stokes' § 1983 claims for deprivation of liberty without due process and for civil rights conspiracy (Counts II and III), but only with respect to those claims related to Defendant's alleged participation in the fabrication of evidence used in the perjury prosecution against Franklin Lee; and The motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects.”

Varga v. Allied World Insurance Company
2:24-cv-03410 · 2025-05-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss is granted and this matter is dismissed. ... because Plaintiff's bad faith claim is premised solely on the allegation that Allied World had no basis to deny coverage, the claim fails as a matter of law since this Court has determined that Allied World had no duty to defend.”

Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. v. IQVIA, Inc.
2:20-cv-02370 · 2026-03-30
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, insofar as it has established Defendant's liability on its TCPA claim. Accordingly, a separate Judgment Order will be entered in Plaintiff's favor against Defendant in the amount of $2,000; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED in all other respects, including its request that Plaintiff be awarded treble damages and a permanent injunction”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Lynch v. Su
2:22-cv-00091 · 2024-01-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant, and against Plaintiff.”

Price v. Commonwealth Charter Academy-Cyberschool
2:18-cv-01778 · 2019-08-13
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, [ECF 21], is DENIED”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motion for summary judgment, [ECF 20], is GRANTED.”

Prince v. Malaugh
2:16-cv-06179 · 2019-01-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on all of Plaintiffs' claims.”

SJ Abstract d/b/a InterstateAbstract.com v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Co.
2:21-cv-01334 · 2024-06-26
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant's motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's breach of contract claim premised on the deposition disclosure; and ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's breach of contract claim premised on the voicemail disclosure.”

Williams v. Elliott
2:18-cv-05418 · 2024-08-26
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Elliott's motion for summary judgment is granted as to all of Williams' claims premised on Aaliyah's Heartbroken; (2) Elliott's motion for summary judgment is denied as to Williams' claims premised on the SISTA Songs”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Williams' motion for summary judgment is denied as it pertains to his claims.”

Special Risk Insurance Services, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC
2:19-cv-03002 · 2022-04-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“upon consideration of Defendant's motion for summary judgment, [34] ... it is hereby ORDERED ... that the motion is GRANTED.”

Chant Engineering Co. Inc. v. Cumberland Sales Company
2:20-cv-04559 · 2021-02-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the claims asserted against Cumberland are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 190 days (N = 10).

The sampled 2019 docket includes frequent federal and state habeas matters, along with civil-rights, insurance, contract, consumer-communications, False Claims Act, fraud, and other diversity 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 months26
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months1
Social Security appeals pending more than six months1
Civil cases pending more than three years23
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 20262623
Sep 20252419
Mar 20252514
Sep 20242019
Mar 20241615
Sep 2023816
Mar 2023316
Sep 202248
Mar 202238
Sep 202126
Mar 202155
Sep 202035

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 Alejandro: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed5,7305.1 months
Closed with no court action1,9523.2 months
Closed before pretrial2,8344.7 months
Closed during or after pretrial89810 months
Closed during trial4617.8 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20255,7305.1 months
Sep 20246,2004.6 months
Sep 20236,5957 months
Sep 20225,2216.6 months
Sep 20215,2456.5 months
Sep 20204,6865.7 months
Sep 20195,3746 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 Alejandro with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Alejandro, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Alejandro's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace