Maria del R. Antongiorgi-Jordan
How Judge Antongiorgi-Jordan rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Antongiorgi-Jordan
María del R. Antongiorgi-Jordán is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Antongiorgi-Jordán received a commission on December 1, 2022.
Judge Antongiorgi-Jordan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Antongiorgi-Jordan, 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
Other
Judge Antongiorgi-Jordán disqualifies herself when the entities listed in her order appear as counsel or parties.
“The undersigned permanently disqualifies herself in all cases in which the”
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 Antongiorgi-Jordan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In RVD Realty, Inc. v. Monroe County Sheriff's Office, Antongiorgi-Jordán rejected a Rule 19 dismissal argument because the United States had not claimed an interest in the lease dispute.
“Here, simply put, the United States has not claimed an interest.”
In Fuentes Fuentes v. Mennonite General Hospital, Inc., Antongiorgi-Jordán found the plaintiff’s expert testimony insufficient to establish that the alleged negligence most probably caused his grandmother’s death.
“he fails to establish medical malpractice causation, as his experts did not provide sufficient admissible testimony to demonstrate that Defendants' negligence was the most probable cause of his grandmother's death.”
In United States v. Santana-Mendoza, she denied a motion challenging a money-laundering count as duplicitous because three similar challenges had already failed in the same case and the defendant showed no reason to depart from those rulings.
“The law of the case doctrine counsels against departing from the previous three similar findings on this issue... Defendant raises none of the above-mentioned circumstances in moving the Court deem count four duplicitous.”
In Batista Acevedo v. Presbyterian Community Hospital, Antongiorgi-Jordán granted nurse practitioner Roa’s motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert testimony as to his conduct. The reports addressed physicians and medical institutions but did not discuss the distinct standard of care applicable to nurses under Puerto Rico law.
“While all three expert opinions speak to the standard of care faced by physicians and/or medical institutions, nurses are subject to a distinct standard of care under Puerto Rico law in light of their distinct roles and responsibilities.”
Procedural preferences
In Rosado v. Adorno-Delgado, she granted summary judgment for the defendant on her own initiative after both sides had fully briefed the issues and had ample opportunity to argue them.
“Because both parties have had ample opportunity to argue, and have in fact argued, the issues decided below, any prejudice from a lack of further notice has been obviated.”
In Banesco USA v. Federacion de Asociaciones Pecuarias de Puerto Rico, Antongiorgi-Jordán reviewed the uncontested facts and summary-judgment motion before granting judgment on the loan debt.
“Taking those facts to be true, and after an in-depth review of the motion for summary judgment, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to Summary Judgment on its claims.”
In Torres Dillon v. Maldonado, Antongiorgi-Jordán held a default-damages hearing with testimony and exhibits, then set compensatory damages from that record.
“once the entry of a default establishes the fact of damage, the trial judge... has considerable latitude in determining the amount of damages.”
In Baerga-Colón v. Menonita Guayama Hospital, Inc., she allowed an expert to address one hospital's nursing staff but barred testimony about another hospital's staff because his report did not discuss them.
“Dr. Ortiz may not, however, testify as to the nursing staff at Menonita Guayama. As such, Moving Defendants' Motion in Limine is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
In United States v. Perez-Fernandez, she found that one defendant rebutted the detention presumption but kept him detained after the government independently established by clear and convincing evidence that release conditions could not protect the community.
“the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge López-Soler that the evidence proffered by Defendant was sufficient to rebut the presumption that detention is warranted. Nevertheless, after weighing the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes that the evidence proffered by the Government establishes by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the community.”
Cautions
In Cruzado-Laureano v. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Antongiorgi-Jordán dismissed the complaint with prejudice, found the plaintiff a vexatious litigant after repeated suits over his 2002 conviction, and ordered him to show cause why further filings on that subject should require prior leave.
“Building on previous rulings in this District, the Court once again finds that the Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, no later than July 28, 2023, as to why the Court should not enjoin him from filing any action relating to his 2002 criminal conviction without prior leave from the Court.”
In Lignos-Lopez v. Servicios de Terapia Educativa Girasol, Inc., she dismissed a fifth amended complaint without prejudice because its institutional-liability claim recited policy or custom without facts showing a widespread practice.
“Emblematic of the Complaint's insufficiently pled allegations are factually threadbare recitals... precisely the type of 'formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action' that are insufficient to state a claim.”
At summary judgment, conclusory allegations, unsupported speculation, or self-serving assertions unaccompanied by record citations get no evidentiary weight: a party resisting judgment needs specific, citable facts.
“The Court 'must take the evidence in the light most flattering to the party opposing summary judgment'... but may 'afford no evidentiary weight to conclusory allegations, empty rhetoric, unsupported speculation, or evidence which, in the aggregate, is less than significantly probative.'”
In Brown v. Latin American Music Co., the court granted summary judgment on copyright counterclaims involving twelve poems but left one song for trial because the record permitted competing inferences about a nonexclusive license.
“summary judgment is not warranted, since a genuine dispute of material fact exists over whether Brown possessed a non-exclusive license to exploit that copyright.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.”
“Consequently, the Court ADJUDGES and DECREES that Defendant acted negligently, and such negligent actions were the cause of Plaintiffs' damages... once the entry of a default establishes the fact of damage, the trial judge... has considerable latitude in determining the amount of damages.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Indictment based on their jurisdictional challenges under the MDLEA and their due process claims.”
“There are thus no genuine issues of material fact warranting this case be sent to trial, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered accordingly.”
“Given that the contract mandates any liability for damages or otherwise shall be limited to proceeds of insurance policies, and the fact the United States has not claimed an interest in the matter, the United States is not a necessary party... Their motion is thus DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiffs' Complaint lacks specific factual allegations of a widespread practice amounting to de facto policy or deliberate indifference by policymakers... Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and all other pending motions are rendered moot.”
“This alone merits dismissal... he fails to establish medical malpractice causation, as his experts did not provide sufficient admissible testimony... Accordingly, this medical malpractice action is DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court will not disturb the Middle District of Florida's ruling and finds that it has jurisdiction to issue the writ of execution. Defendant's Motion is thus DENIED.”
“The law of the case doctrine counsels against departing from the previous three similar findings on this issue... Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated hereafter, the Court GRANTS Summary Judgment in Defendant's favor sua sponte, thereby summarily dismissing this action... Summary Judgment is thus GRANTED in Defendant's favor sua sponte. All remaining pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.”
“Accordingly, summary judgment is not warranted and the instant motion is DENIED.”
“Taking those facts to be true, and after an in-depth review of the motion for summary judgment, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to Summary Judgment on its claims... For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that summary judgment is warranted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Her docket mixes a substantial inherited caseload, cases assigned to her that were filed years to decades before her December 2022 appointment (examples span 1996, 2005, 2008, 2016-2021), evidently reassigned matters where a predecessor judge did most of the work, with a fast-growing docket of her own newly filed cases since December 2022.
- The new caseload spans personal-injury and product-liability suits, medical malpractice, employment and ADA claims, prisoner civil-rights and habeas petitions, civil forfeiture, contract and foreclosure actions, and criminal narcotics and money-laundering prosecutions.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
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 District of Puerto Rico, not for Judge Antongiorgi-Jordan: 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 Antongiorgi-Jordan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Antongiorgi-Jordan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Antongiorgi-Jordan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace