Average Closing Time Report for

Judge X
Southern District of New York

Hide Details   Judge District Compared
To District		 U.S. Compared
To U.S.
New filings 270 243 11.1% 250 8.1%
All cases closed 228 223 2.4% 249 -8.4%
Average days to close 312 341 -8.6% 300 4.0%
Cases closed after 1 year 77 68 12.8% 71 8.1%
Average days to close 621 756 -17.9% 695 -10.7%
Weighted cases filed 299 276 8.2% 250 19.6%
Weighted cases closed 276 249 10.5% 249 10.7%

Table 1: Average Closing Time Comparison

For all civil cases disposed of in the Southern District of New York during the 12-month period ending in March 2016 that were credited to Judge X, the average closing time was 312 days. This figure was 8.6% lower than the average closing time for all civil matters disposed of in the Southern District of New York in this period. At the same time, the judge's average closing time was 4.0% higher than typical for the nation as a whole. During the 12-month span covered here, Judge X had disposed of 228 cases. For this group, 77 cases had been pending for one year or more, before being closed.

Focusing only on Judge X's cases that were closed after they had been pending for one year or more, the average closing time was 621 days. This was 17.9% lower than the 756 days typical for this category among the judges in the Southern District of New York and 10.7% lower than the 695 days for the nation.

Bar chart of start

Figure 1: Comparison of Average Closing Time
in Days

Figure 1 compares the performance of Judge X in dealing with civil cases that were closed after they had been pending for one year or more with that of other judges, both those in this district and for the whole nation.

The records show that during the past 12 months in the Southern District of New York there were 42 judges with dispositions of this type that could be compared with Judge X. Actual values for all of these 42 judges ranged from 559 days to 2246 days. Judge X's average closing time of 621 days was at the lower end of the rankings relative to the district's other 42 judges. These statistics are only for the cases that were closed after they had been pending for one year or more.


Figure 2: Detailed Comparison among Judges for the Southern District of New York

The Challenge of Comparing Individual Civil Caseloads

But additional factors should be considered in such judge-by-judge comparisons even when the judges are in the same district. District court judges must handle all cases assigned to them. They cannot dismiss cases simply because their dockets are full or over flowing. Further, any one judge's workload is a reflection of the volume and nature of cases filed in that district relative to the number of judges available to share the workload.

Bar chart of start

Figure 3: Comparison of Unweighted Caseload Figures.

Figure 3 compares comparative caseload counts for Judge X relative to the average caseload of each judge in the district and the nation as a whole that were closed. (For the actual numbers see Table 1.) District and national figures are based upon caseload counts for regular fulltime court judges who were on the bench during the entire preceding 12-month period.

Bar chart of start

Figure 4: Comparison of Weighted Caseload Figures.

Weighting. Civil cases naturally differ in their complexity and the amount of time that may be required to handle them in a fair and expeditious way. Thus, in addition to the volume of cases, the various kinds of cases handled by individual judges will influence these statistical comparisons. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), however, has developed a weighting system to adjust for the differences in the average time required to handle cases depending upon the nature of the suit. Using this weighting system, the average number of the weighted cases disposed of per judge in the Southern District of New York was 249 while the average number of the weighted cases for all judges in the U.S. was 249. By comparison, Judge X handled 276 cases. These weighted caseload figures are compared in Figure 4.

Random assignment. Random assignment of cases to judges in the same assignment pool over the course of a year should result in a similar number of cases for each judge, as well as a roughly similar case composition for each judge. Naturally a senior judge who has retired from the bench but still handles cases on a voluntary basis might -- with random assignment -- be assigned a lower caseload, or volunteer only for particular types of cases.

Since a single district often is divided into more than one case assignment pool when there are courthouses in separate cities, caseload and performance statistics should be examined by court location to help ensure that comparisons are within the same assignment pool.

Court docket numbers now include a numerical code ("office") that designates the court where that case was assigned, although sometimes it designates a special class of cases. While the Southern District of New York had an average weighted caseload per judge of 249, the corresponding figures by courthouse were:

Professional Biography

Born 1968 in New York, NY

Federal Judicial Service
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Nominated by Barack Obama on July 28, 2011, to a seat vacated by Lewis A. Kaplan; Confirmed by the Senate on March 22, 2012, and received commission on March 23, 2012.

Education:
Cornell University, B.A., 1990
Yale Law School, J.D., 1993

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Thomas P. Griesa, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1993-1994
Private practice, New York City, 1994-1998, 2008-2012
Assistant U.S. attorney, Southern District of New York, 1998-2008; acting chief, General Crimes Unit, 2004-2005; chief, General Crimes Unit, 2005-2007; deputy chief, Criminal Division, 2007-2008
Lecturer-in-law, Columbia University School of Law, 2008-

Courthouses Within the District

Cases disposed of in the Southern District of New York in the past year were handled by more than one office. The N. Y., S - Foley Square office accounted for 98.2% of Judge X's cases.

Office Judge District  
N. Y., S - Foley Square 98.2% 88.2% More
N. Y., S - White Plains 1.8% 11.8%  
N. Y., S - White Plains - Suspense - 0.0%  

Table 2: Distribution of Cases by Office

Nature of Suit in Closed Cases

Cases disposed of by Judge X for the past twelve months fell into a number of broad categories. The most common category for these cases was "Civil Rights " accounting for 21.9% of cases.

Other major categories with cases that were disposed by Judge X over the past twelve months were: Contract (15.4%), Labor (15.4%), Other Statutes (14.9%), Property Rights (9.2%), Prisoner Petitions (6.1%), Social Security (4.4%), Immigration (3.1%), Torts - Personal Injury - Other (2.6%), Torts - Personal Property (2.6%).

Nature of Suit (grouped) Judge District U.S.  
Civil Rights 21.9% 20.7% 14.1% More
Contract 15.4% 11.6% 10.4% More
Labor 15.4% 11.7% 7.1% More
Other Statutes 14.9% 9.1% 10.0% More
Property Rights 9.2% 8.2% 5.6% More
Prisoner Petitions 6.1% 11.4% 20.2% More
Social Security 4.4% 3.3% 4.9% More
Immigration 3.1% 1.5% 0.9%  
Torts - Personal Injury - Other 2.6% 5.8% 5.9%  
Torts - Personal Property 2.6% 1.6% 3.1%  

Table 3: Distribution of Cases by Nature of Suit

Judge X's Closed Cases That Took The Longest Time

Case # Case Title Nature of Suit Closing Time (Days) Closed
1:2010cv03532 Hunter v. Adh et al Civil Rights 1879 20NOV15
1:2012cv06852 Melgadejo v. S & D Fruits & Vegetables Inc. et al Fair Labor Standards Act 1262 25FEB16
1:2012cv08703 Lefkowitz v. Reissman et al Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 1148 22JAN16
1:2013cv00669 Hamilton v. Countant et al Civil Rights 1128 02MAR16
1:2012cv07526 D.L.G. et al v. United States et al Personal Injury- Medical Malpractice 1120 03NOV15
1:2013cv01432 Henig v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP et al Fair Labor Standards Act 1031 30DEC15
1:2013cv04107 Few v. Yellowpages.com LLC Employment 965 04FEB16
1:2013cv03657 Martinez v. Capra General Prisoner Petitions 956 11JAN16
1:2013cv01109 Twomey v. Quad/Graphics, Inc. Employment 952 29SEP15
1:2013cv07557 Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty v. MSC "Ludovica" (CHIW) et al Marine 875 18MAR16
1:2013cv07559 Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty v. "Chiswick Bridge" et al Marine 874 17MAR16
1:2013cv06951 Tanvir v. Comey et al Other Civil Rights 853 01FEB16
1:2013cv05347 Coalition for Healthy Ports et al v. The United States Coast Guard et al Environmental Matters 847 25NOV15
1:2013cv04608 Pecora v. New York City Board/Department of Education Employment 816 26SEP15
1:2013cv06143 Kirby v. City of New York et al Amer w/Disabilities - Other 801 09NOV15
1:2014cv00531 Suarez v. Crothall Facilities Management Inc. et al Other Personal Injury 742 10FEB16
1:2013cv03965 West v. Rivera et al Civil Rights 721 29MAY15
1:2013cv03243 Van Lam v. City of New York et al Other Civil Rights 720 04MAY15
1:2013cv05980 Arzu v. City of New York et al Other Civil Rights 713 06AUG15
1:2013cv08320 Thomas v. Altschul et al Other Statutory Actions 691 13OCT15
1:2013cv03695 Brown v. Brooklyn Industries LLC et al Amer w/Disabilities - Other 685 16APR15
1:2013cv06499 Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund et al v. J.D. Martin Renovations, Inc. Labor/Management Relations 678 23JUL15
1:2014cv00223 Daya v. Xerox Corporation et al Employment 647 22OCT15
1:2014cv05165 Hollaway v. Commissioner of Social Security DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 637 31MAR16
1:2013cv09244 United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Takedas Pharmaceutical Co., ltd. et al Other Contract 632 24SEP15

Table 4: Judge X's Closed Cases That Took The Longest Time