Jagan Nicholas Ranjan
How Judge Ranjan rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ranjan
J. Nicholas Ranjan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Ranjan received a commission on July 12, 2019.
Judge Ranjan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ranjan, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Contact chambers for routine scheduling issues and discovery disputes.
“Counsel may contact chambers for routine scheduling matters, and to raise any discovery disputes.”
Motions
Confer with opposing counsel before a routine motion and state whether consent was obtained.
“counsel for movant must confer with opposing counsel to obtain consent, and state in the motion whether consent was obtained.”
Motions
Unless ordered otherwise, limit a principal motion brief to 20 pages.
“Unless ordered otherwise, the principal brief in support of a motion should be no more than 20 pages.”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Ranjan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Multiple Energy Technologies v. Under Armour, he denied dismissal of the third amended antitrust complaint because its allegations plausibly defined a market and market power, while leaving those issues open for summary judgment after discovery.
“Under Armour’s motion to dismiss is DENIED”
In Lead Be Gone v. Golden Pheasant Sportsmen, he denied the defendant’s motion without prejudice because the plaintiff needed discovery on the club’s nonprofit status and lead-bullet recycling before opposing summary judgment.
“if a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may . . . defer considering the motion or deny it”
Procedural preferences
In Multiple Energy Technologies v. Under Armour, he dismissed the second amended antitrust complaint but allowed one final amendment by a fixed deadline because the plaintiff’s arguments suggested a market definition it might be able to plead.
“the Court will allow amendment because MET's arguments allude to a possible definition of the relevant market that could be enough to survive dismissal.”
In Pappal, Ranjan remanded when the ALJ’s explanation left a material gap about medical evidence of cognitive fatigue, while leaving the disability determination to the agency.
“There is enough of a gap here between the ALJ’s opinion and the record on the key issue of cognitive fatigue for the ALJ to take a second look.”
Cautions
In Williams v. Becerra, he declined equitable tolling for Medicare appeals filed three days late after counsel’s case manager contracted COVID-19, finding that the illness had not prevented the law firm from filing on time.
“the case manager's illness was not an 'extraordinary' occurrence that prevented Plaintiffs from filing.”
In the Multiple Energy dispute, Ranjan excluded an antitrust damages opinion because the expert did not explain why a calculation developed for a separate false-advertising claim measured the alleged antitrust injury.
“Dr. Hekman never offers why the two damage estimations are the same”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Under Armour's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is GRANTED. MET must file any amended complaint by July 9, 2021.”
“Under Armour's motion to dismiss is DENIED, but without prejudice to Under Armour raising these same arguments on a more developed record at summary judgment.”
“the amended complaints are DISMISSED without prejudice and these cases are hereby REMANDED to the Medicare Appeals Council for the reinstatement of Plaintiffs' administrative appeals.”
“Golden Pheasant's motion (ECF 33) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“the Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF 38] will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Count II, but will deny it on Count I.”
“The Court will grant summary judgment in Defendants’ favor.”
“the Court GRANTS Wyndham’s motion (ECF 51), and dismisses the claims outlined above with prejudice.”
“The Court HEREBY GRANTS UPMC Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF 58).”
“The Court HEREBY GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Ms. Flick’s motion to dismiss (ECF 56).”
“For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Telleses’ partial motion for summary judgment”
“GRANTS Starr’s motion for summary judgment as to Count I”
“GRANTS Starr’s motion to dismiss as to Count II. Count II will be dismissed with prejudice, and with no leave to amend, given that this is a purely legal issue and amendment would be futile.”
“On careful review, the Court grants in part and denies in part Tri Star’s motion for summary judgment and denies Tri Star’s motion for sanctions.”
“Tri Star’s motion for sanctions (ECF 46) is also denied.”
“Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo sorted through the complaint, and motions to dismiss, and issued a comprehensive and detailed R&R, in which he sensibly severed the April 25, 2023, claims to make the case more manageable, dismissed certain claims, and allowed others to proceed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled 2026 docket contains a large concentration of Section 2241 alien-detainee habeas petitions involving the Moshannon Valley Processing Center.
- Reviewed filings from 2021 and 2022 also include patent and Lanham Act counterfeit-goods suits, prisoner civil-rights cases, antitrust, arbitration, self-represented matters, and criminal cases.
- Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly handled referrals in some of these matters.
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 | 32 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 6 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 32 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 20 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 16 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 19 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 14 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 9 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 13 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 14 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 3 |
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 Western District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Ranjan: 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 | 1,965 | 6.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 665 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 659 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 632 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,965 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,871 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,021 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,988 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,891 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,939 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,766 | 6.9 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 Ranjan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ranjan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ranjan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace