Aida M. Delgado-Colon
How Judge Delgado-Colon rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Delgado-Colon
Aida M. Delgado-Colón is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Delgado-Colón received a commission on March 17, 2006.
Judge Delgado-Colon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Delgado-Colon, 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.
- Standing Order: Revocation Proceedings ↗
- Motions for Entry of Default & Default Judgment in Foreclosure Cases ↗
- Case Management Order - Criminal Multidefendant Cases ↗
- Criminal Discovery and Case Management ↗
Key rules
Filing
In multidefendant criminal cases, put the defendant’s full name and indictment number in each motion caption.
“Each motion, within the caption, shall include defendant’s full name and”
Discovery
In multidefendant criminal cases, certify an effort at informal resolution before filing a discovery motion.
“No motion for informal, general or specific discovery will be entertained, unless”
Discovery
In criminal discovery cases under this order, certify informal resolution efforts before filing a discovery motion.
“No motion for informal, general or specific discovery will be entertained, unless”
Trial
In multidefendant criminal cases, submit proposed voir dire, instructions, and verdict forms at least five working days before trial.
“Proposed Voir-Dire, Jury Instructions and Verdict Form(s) are to be submitted”
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).
- General Standing Order - Revocation Proceedings ↗
- General Standing Order in re: Change of Plea Hearing ↗
- General Standing Order in re: Procedures for Initial Appearances ↗
- Standing Order In Re: Appropriate Attire ↗
- Standing Order In Re: Access to Presentence Reports Pursuant to Standing Order 11: Request for Copies ↗
- Standing Order In Re: Storage and Management of Sealed and Restricted Documents: New Guidelines ↗
How Judge Delgado-Colon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an FHA housing-discrimination case, the judge held that a party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing every element and cannot rely on the opposing party's supposed silence: pointing out that the defendants' own motion never even proposed a fact about when the plaintiff learned they were the likely source of her injury, which alone defeated the motion regardless of how the record might otherwise read.
“Dr. Guilbe proposed no material fact whatsoever related to that particular moment. The Court cannot infer from thin air when was it that plaintiffs had '[n]otice of the person who caused the injury.'”
In Domínguez-Rubio, Delgado-Colón rejected the age-discrimination plaintiffs’ comparison to a case involving shifting explanations because Hewlett Packard had not changed its stated reasons and the plaintiffs showed no comparable disparate treatment.
“Plaintiffs have not provided any such evidence of disparate treatment or shifting of paths in HP’s decisions regarding the WRP.”
Denying a post-verdict acquittal motion in a public-corruption bribery case, the judge gave weight to the ongoing, periodic pattern of the payments (both before and after the specific acts charged) rather than treating each payment in isolation, rejecting the defendant's attempt to recharacterize them as after-the-fact gratuities.
“The bribes paid by Santamaria to Perez-Otero to either regain his trust after the 2017 elections and later to ensure the award of contracts, were periodic and ongoing since late 2018 or early 2019, so isolating any one payment as after-the-fact gratuities ignores the existence of the agreement and the established pattern of conduct of periodic cash payments in exchange for benefits.”
Procedural preferences
In Hernandez-Silva v. Instituto Modelo de Ensenanza Individualizada, Inc., she denied an emergency request for a temporary restraining order because the supporting documents were filed only in Spanish and could not be used to assess the request under the district's English-language rule.
“Plaintiff's case and request for TRO are based on the content of the documents submitted in the Spanish language. Pursuant to 48 U.S.C. Section 864, all pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico shall be conducted in the English language.”
In Perez-Serrano v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc., she applied the local summary judgment rule under which properly cited facts are deemed admitted unless specifically controverted and the court has no independent duty to search the record.
“Facts contained in a supporting or opposing statement of material facts, if supported by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted... The court shall have no independent duty to search or consider any part of the record not specifically referenced by the parties' separate statement of facts.”
In United States v. Maria Trini Menendez, she declined to consider arguments the defendants raised for the first time in a reply memorandum because the local rule limits replies to new matters raised in opposition.
“These arguments are waived and will not be entertained via reply... The Court's local rules strictly limit the content of a reply memorandum to new matters raised in the objection or opposing memorandum.”
In Hernández-Ortiz, Delgado-Colón declined to consider new factual allegations presented in the plaintiffs’ opposition to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion rather than in their complaint.
“Consequently, plaintiffs’ attempt to introduce factual allegations through their motion in response at ECF No. 22 is unavailing.”
Cautions
In a criminal case involving Miguel Santana-Aviles, she denied a request to consolidate sentencing with a separate proceeding, citing her firsthand knowledge of the trial and finding that the other case was not relevant conduct.
“This case is ripe for sentencing and is a case in which rather than a plea, the defendant went to trial. The undersigned presided over the trial and as such is in a better position to exercise sentencing discretion. More so, the other case does not constitute relevant conduct nor presents a scenario making consolidation warranted.”
In Ruiz-Romero v. Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico, she denied a pro se habeas petition after the petitioner, despite repeated opportunities, did not supply the facts needed to assess the state proceeding, custody status, or exhaustion.
“In this case, it is more than evident that the petition fails to state a claim for relief and fails to set the stage for the Court to consider section 2254’s criterion.”
In a civil case, the judge dismissed the complaint with prejudice after the plaintiff failed to respond to a clear warning, did not prosecute the case, and did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
“Despite being on notice that her failure to act risked the dismissal of her claims, plaintiff failed to act.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based upon the foregoing, defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs’ federal claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs’ Commonwealth of Puerto Rico law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Clerk is to enter judgment accordingly.”
“In light of the above, the Municipality's motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, ECF No. 153, is hereby DENIED.”
“For the above stated reasons, the Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dr. Guilbe's motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 72.”
“Based on the above, the motion to suppress is DENIED. ECF No. 559.”
“For the reasons stated above, petitioner Francisco Lopez-Negron's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 is DENIED and his claims for relief DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgement shall be entered forthwith.”
“The motion to withdraw the reference, at ECF No. 1-15, is DENIED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Bankruptcy Court. Accordingly, ECF Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 are denied as Moot. ECF No. 11 is Noted. All other pending motions are hereby REMANDED as well.”
“Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss at ECF No. 15 is GRANTED. Consequently: Plaintiffs' federal claims are hereby DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The remaining state law claims are likewise DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to their reassertion in state court.”
“For all the reasons stated above, the Court hereby OVERRULES defendants' objections to the R&R at ECF Nos. 113, 117, 122, ADOPTS the R&R at ECF No. 112, and DENIES defendants' motions to dismiss the indictment at ECF Nos. 87, 88, 105.”
“For this reason, the Court DENIES Perez-Otero's motion for acquittal at ECF No. 106.”
“The motions for summary judgment at ECF Nos. 46, 47 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART: Villalobos-Santana's claims of retaliation for the discrete acts of the seizure of his firearm and the change of his shifts are time-barred and, thus, unactionable, and hereby dismissed for liability purposes. Colon-Rodriguez's claims of retaliation related to the tow truck incident are time-barred... Colon-Rodriguez's claims of retaliation due to work on the weekends and the lack of payment for such work are dismissed. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 47 is DENIED in PART as to all other claims asserted.”
“In light of all the above, the Court hereby DENIES the motion to strike at ECF No. 78.”
“In light of all the above, the Court hereby DENIES the De La Fuente defendants' motion for summary judgment at ECF No. 10. The De La Fuente defendants are granted 15 days to submit their responsive pleading.”
“After a careful review of the record and for the reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 125; OVERRULES defendant's objections at ECF No. 137; and, thus, DENIES defendants' motions to suppress at ECF Nos. 26, 39.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Her general docket spans insurance and reinsurance disputes (including a large post-hurricane appraisal-award docket), employment discrimination and wrongful-termination suits, personal-injury and products-liability removals, civil-rights and police-misconduct suits, habeas corpus and Section 2255 petitions, Social Security disability-benefits appeals, bankruptcy-adjacent shareholder disputes, admiralty and forfeiture matters, and a substantial criminal docket including narcotics, firearms, money-laundering, and public-corruption prosecutions, drawn primarily from the San Juan division.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 17 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 District of Puerto Rico, not for Judge Delgado-Colon: 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 | 584 | 13.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 84 | 7.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 470 | 14.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 37.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 17 | 37.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 584 | 13.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 706 | 13.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 778 | 17.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 725 | 19 months |
| Sep 2021 | 818 | 17.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 862 | 13.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,249 | 16.8 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 Delgado-Colon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Delgado-Colon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Delgado-Colon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace