David John Novak
How Judge Novak rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Novak
David John Novak is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Novak received a commission on October 17, 2019.
Judge Novak's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Novak, 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
Motions
In civil cases before Judge Novak, a movant need not schedule a hearing within 30 days of filing.
“The Court will not enforce the provisions of Local Rule 7(E) to the extent that it requires a movant to schedule a hearing within thirty (30) days after filing a motion.”
Motions
A separate oral-argument motion before Judge Novak must explain why argument will materially aid the decision.
“The separate motion must include an incorporated brief explaining why oral argument will materially aid in the decisional process.”
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 Novak decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Capital One litigation, he resolved a Rule 12(b)(6) motion count by count, dismissing four claims and allowing the others to proceed. Parties should address each claim separately rather than assuming an all-or-nothing result.
“The Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 29.) Counts XVI, XX, XXII and XXIII of the Consolidated Amended Complaint ... are hereby DISMISSED. This matter shall proceed on all other Counts ...”
Procedural preferences
In the Capital One litigation, he declined to certify a proposed question of Virginia law to the Supreme Court of Virginia and retained the issue for decision. A certification request should explain concretely why the federal court cannot reliably resolve the state-law question.
“The Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion to Certify Question to the Supreme Court of Virginia (ECF No.53).”
In the Capital One savings-account litigation, he appointed a Rule 53 special master for discovery and directed the master to proceed with reasonable diligence.
“The Court hereby DIRECTS the Special Master to begin the execution of his duties as set forth above, and to ‘proceed with all reasonable diligence.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b)(2).”
In the Capital One savings-account litigation, he rejected the first proposed class settlement because it offered inadequate relief and treated class members unequally.
“the proposed class action settlement fails to meet the standard laid out in Rule 23(e), specifically as to the adequacy of the proposed settlement and the equitable treatment of class members”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 29.) Counts XVI, XX, XXII and XXIII of the Consolidated Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 10), are hereby DISMISSED. This matter shall proceed on all other Counts asserted in the Consolidated Amended Complaint.”
“The Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 31).”
“The Court hereby DENIES Defendants' Motion to Certify Question to the Supreme Court of Virginia (ECF No.53).”
“The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Appointment of Lead Counsel (ECF No. 4) on the terms set out above.”
“the Court hereby DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in Savett v. Capital One, N.A., No. 1:23cv890 (ECF No. 32).”
“the Court hereby GRANTS Capital One's Motion (ECF No. 27). Capital One shall file an Answer no later than August 12. 2024.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 196)”
“Because Lewis’s filing — in the midst of the settlement approval process — is untimely, the Court DENIES Lewis’s Motion (ECF No. 262).”
“Court approves settlement.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion (ECF No. 323)”
“The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner's Motion for a TRO (ECF No. 4 -1).”
“the Court hereby DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner's Motion for a Stay (ECF No. 5 ).”
“The Court hereby DENIES this Motion because it has already ruled that it would not stay Petitioner's removal.”
“the Court will GRANT Capital One’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34). The Amended Complaint (ECF No. 31) will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Claims One, Three, and Four will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 79 days (N = 12).
The sampled matters include pro se and prisoner cases, consumer-credit disputes, Social Security appeals, employment and product cases, complex multidistrict litigation, immigration detention, and federal criminal matters. Case assignment alone is not used to attribute an order; each included ruling is tied to Novak's signature.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, not for Judge Novak: 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 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,204 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,299 | 4.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 493 | 8.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 15 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,613 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,194 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,134 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,152 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,860 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,267 | 5.9 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 Novak with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Novak, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Novak's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace