Kimba Maureen Wood
How Judge Wood decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Enforces oral agreements under New York law absent a clear expression of intent to be bound only by a writing; partial performance and complete negotiation of terms (Horn & Hardart factors) can carry a contract claim past the pleading stage.
“under New York law, oral agreements are binding and enforceable absent a clear expression of the parties' intent to be bound only by a writing.”
On a Daubert challenge she applies trial-level admissibility standards at the summary-judgment stage and will not exclude an expert merely because the retaining party collaborated in designing or implementing the study; objections to a study's probative value go to weight, not admissibility.
“The Court determines the admissibility of the challenged evidence based on the same principles as would apply at trial.”
In claims with a foreign nexus she rigorously polices extraterritoriality: under Morrison she will dismiss a Commodity Exchange Act claim unless the plaintiff plausibly alleges that the transaction occurred on a registered U.S. exchange or that irrevocable liability was incurred in the United States. A plaintiff with a foreign-trading theory should plead the U.S. situs of the transaction with specificity or expect dismissal.
“Plaintiffs have still failed to allege a sufficient nexus with a U.S. exchange or a U.S. financial transaction to justify a claim under Morrison.”
Procedural preferences
At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage she confines review to the complaint and will not consider an extrinsic document (e.g. an unsigned draft agreement) unless the plaintiff solely relied on it and it is integral to the complaint.
“On a motion to dismiss, a court may consider a document other than an exhibit to a complaint only if it is one on which the plaintiff ‘solely relies and which is integral to the complaint.’”
She resolves dispositive motions claim-by-claim, frequently granting summary judgment or dismissal on some claims/defendants while denying it on others (4 of the 5 sampled orders were order-level splits) -- expect a granular, per-claim ruling rather than an all-or-nothing outcome.
“the Court GRANTS Dollinger's motion for summary judgment with respect to its first and third claims. The motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Stonewell's second claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the claim against LW of inducement of copyright infringement, and DENIES LW's motion for summary judgment on the claim”
“the Court: (1) DENIES Defendants' motions to exclude evidence”
“the Court GRANTS Dollinger's motion for summary judgment with respect to its first and third claims. The motion for summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Stonewell's second claim.”
“For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion in part and DENIES it in part. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiffs' claims of (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The Court DENIES Defendants' motion with respect to Plaintiffs' claims of (1) Unfair Competition, (2) Unjust Enrichment, and (3) Tortious Interference with Contract.”
“For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as to the District; and GRANTED as to the individual Defendants.”
“Defendants Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc., Golda Tour I, L.P., David Fishelson, and Fishelson Productions, Inc. move to dismiss this action by Plaintiff Anna Pearce, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). ... For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Count I (extrajudicial killings), Count V (rights to life, liberty, security and association), Count VI (forced exile), and Count VII (property destruction), and is denied as to Count II (crimes against humanity), Count III (torture), and Count IV (arbitrary arrest and detention).”
“For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Defendants' motion.”
“Third-party defendants moved to dismiss the underlying complaint against the contractor and the third-party complaint. ... For the reasons stated below, the Court grants all motions to dismiss.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion. Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“as to Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Defendants' motion. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA, but that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to compensation for any alleged late payment of wages.”
“as to Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Defendants' motion.”
“Both parties have moved for summary judgment. ... For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with the Report, and summary judgment is denied.”
“For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with the Report, and summary judgment is denied.”
“Magistrate Judge Francis recommended that I grant plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment to the extent of dismissing defendants' affirmative defenses based on limitation of liability under the Convention and that plaintiffs motion otherwise be denied. ... I adopt Magistrate Judge Francis' Report in its entirety.”
“The Magistrate Judge further recommended that defendants' motions for partial summary judgment be denied in their entirety. ... I adopt Magistrate Judge Francis' Report in its entirety.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
As a senior judge she carries a substantial pro se prisoner/habeas/civil-rights docket (the visible 2024-2025 slice), most cases terminated quickly on in-forma-pauperis or screening grounds. This reflects her current case-assignment mix, not a tenure-wide caseload, and is distinct from the counseled commercial/IP/employment matters in her published opinions.
Put Judge Wood's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Wood actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Wood's own signed orders and cites them.