Research note 02Published July 16, 2026 · v1.1

The federal venue lottery

File the identical claim in two federal districts and the clock runs differently — often by 2–5×, and in the extremes by nearly 30×. Where a case lands is a duration variable fixed before the first motion.

Provenance
Median time to resolution across the 30 highest-volume U.S. district courts, benchmarked within each nature-of-suit family so the comparison holds case type constant. Kaplan–Meier estimates from the FJC Integrated Data Base, 2014–2026 filings; cells gated at n ≥ 200. Dataset snapshot: tertius-acta-4 (2026-07-12).
30
districts ranked
2–30×
fastest-to-slowest spread, by case type
Four findings + matrix01 · The lottery, by case type02 · Consistently fast, consistently slow03 · The rocket-docket myth04 · When “fast” isn't speed05 · The full matrix
Finding 01 — The lottery, by case type

Identical claims, very different clocks.

For every case family, the gap between the fastest and slowest district dwarfs any single procedural choice. Each bar spans one nature-of-suit family from its fastest district to its slowest; the dashed line marks the national median for that family.

Fastest → slowest district · median days · scale 0–1,500
FastestSlowestNational median
Antitrust
C.D. Cal. · 274d
E.D. Mich. · 1,365d
5.0×
spread
Personal injuryMDL-hub effect
E.D. Mo. · 77d
E.D. La. · 1,433d
18.6×
spread
Social security
W.D. Wash. · 232d
E.D. Tex. · 486d
2.1×
spread
Employment
S.D. Fla. · 146d
E.D. Cal. · 441d
3.0×
spread
Contract
S.D. Fla. · 180d
E.D. Cal. · 366d
2.0×
spread
Other statutoryprocedural exits
E.D. La. · 26d
E.D. Tex. · 342d
13.2×
spread
Patent
S.D. Fla. · 122d
W.D. Pa. · 337d
2.8×
spread
Prisoner
S.D. Cal. · 60d
E.D.N.Y. · 415d
6.9×
spread
Civil rights
S.D. Fla. · 79d
E.D. Mich. · 390d
4.9×
spread
Other torts
S.D. Fla. · 123d
E.D. La. · 313d
2.5×
spread
Real propertyprocedural exits
C.D. Cal. · 13d
E.D.N.Y. · 388d
29.8×
spread
Other IP
N.D. Ill. · 111d
E.D. La. · 497d
4.5×
spread
Immigration
S.D. Cal. · 42d
S.D. Ohio · 144d
3.4×
spread
Personal injury is the outlier of outliers. The same claim resolves in 77 days in E.D. Mo. and 1,433 in E.D. La. — an 18.6× swing driven by mass-tort MDLs that concentrate slow, complex dockets in a few hub districts.
Source: Tertius · FJC Integrated Data BaseMedian days to resolution by district · Kaplan–Meier, 2014–2026 filings · cells n ≥ 200
Finding 02 — Consistently fast, consistently slow

A district's speed is a trait, not a fluke.

Averaged across case types, each district lands at a stable multiple of the national clock. S.D. Fla. runs its whole docket at 0.58× — nearly twice the national pace — while E.D. La. sits at 1.35×. The center line is the national median for every family.

Typical speed ratio vs. national median
FasterSlower
1.0× national
S.D. Fla.
0.58×
W.D. Mo.
0.80×
C.D. Cal.
0.82×
S.D. Cal.
0.84×
N.D. Ohio
0.85×
D. Mass.
1.19×
E.D. Cal.
1.26×
E.D. Tex.
1.28×
S.D. Ohio
1.31×
E.D. La.
1.35×
The trait persists. The two ends of this list are separated by more than 2× before any case-specific fact is known — a gap larger than most procedural choices a litigant controls. Duration expectations that ignore the district ignore one of the largest observable inputs.
Source: Tertius · FJC Integrated Data BaseWithin-family ratio to national median, median across families · five fastest and five slowest of 30
Finding 03 — The rocket-docket myth

E.D. Va. is fast — but not the fastest, and not where its name was made.

The “rocket docket” reputation is real but stale. Across its whole caseload E.D. Va. runs at 0.89× national — the 8th-fastest district, not the first. And in patent, the case type that made its name, its 314-day median is the second slowest of the 26 districts measured (n = 599). Filing decisions calibrated to a twenty-year-old reputation are calibrated to a docket that no longer exists.

Patent median · days · scale 0–350
S.D. Fla. (fastest)122d
National median212d
E.D. Va. “rocket docket”314d
On patent, E.D. Va. is not just slower than the national median — it is the second slowest of 26 measured districts. A docket's speed does not transfer across case types.
Whole-docket speed
0.89×
national median. Genuinely fast — but the 8th-fastest of 30 districts, behind S.D. Fla., W.D. Mo., C.D. Cal. and five others. Reputation is a lagging indicator.
195d
contract median
223d
employment median
Source: Tertius · FJC Integrated Data BasePatent = NOS 830 family · 2014–2026 filings · Kaplan–Meier medians
Finding 04 — When “fast” isn't speed

Some record-low medians are exits, not verdicts.

A 13-day or 26-day median doesn't mean the court adjudicated in two weeks. In certain families the fastest districts owe their speed to waves of procedural terminations — remands, transfers, and consolidations that close a docket entry without resolving the dispute. Duration measures time to termination; at the extremes, what terminates is the entry, not the argument.

Fastest — real property
13dC.D. Cal.
Real property
Consistent with mass procedural dispositions — remands and administrative closures — rather than merits rulings. The source of the 29.8× spread against E.D.N.Y.
Fastest — other statutory
26dE.D. La.
Other statutory
The same district that is slowest on personal injury — speed here reflects procedural terminations, not adjudication.
Slowest — personal injury
1,433dE.D. La.
Personal injury
An MDL hub: mass-tort consolidations park thousands of slow cases in one docket for years (n = 21,646).
Finding 05 — The full matrix

Every district, every case type.

Median days to resolution for the 30 highest-volume districts. Click any column heading to re-rank; cells are shaded by speed relative to that family's national median — cool = faster, warm = slower.

DistrictSpeed ratioContractEmploy.Civil rts.Pers. inj.PatentOther stat.Cases
S.D. Fla.
0.58×
18014679180122131105,626
W.D. Mo.
0.80×
22521119922915223,190
C.D. Cal.
0.82×
213230111198194180177,273
S.D. Cal.
0.84×
21724515332123420432,152
N.D. Ohio
0.85×
23023721540016522431,964
E.D. Pa.
0.86×
19621319629515519670,287
M.D. Fla.
0.88×
238214135287188221100,515
E.D. Va.
0.89×
19522319521331417740,224
N.D. Ill.
0.90×
256257295385145198104,552
W.D. Pa.
0.90×
22524823832133718928,680
D. Colo.
0.93×
31432815436515828240,610
W.D. Wash.
0.93×
27422118234918628936,384
D. Ariz.
0.96×
25624414246325424845,221
N.D. Tex.
0.96×
22128816149115318962,517
S.D.N.Y.
0.98×
267295137357149188124,126
E.D. Mo.
0.98×
2702731917719627,091
N.D. Ga.
0.99×
28727218932018423266,331
D. Md.
1.04×
25428123729626523044,065
W.D. Tex.
1.06×
28735626437422824551,788
N.D. Cal.
1.07×
29331222246821524773,677
D.N.J.
1.08×
29228927055425811685,026
E.D. Mich.
1.09×
25430539035722923344,296
D. Minn.
1.09×
29028117565225629836,495
S.D. Tex.
1.13×
27333326838320425870,853
E.D.N.Y.
1.17×
33436724241021723887,365
D. Mass.
1.19×
31330025477823928135,586
E.D. Cal.
1.26×
36644126640628754,857
E.D. Tex.
1.28×
30134331936921134241,522
S.D. Ohio
1.31×
35032733442721431428,717
E.D. La.
1.35×
3073302891,4332648,943
Source: Tertius · FJC Integrated Data BaseMedian days by district × nature-of-suit family · “—” = below the n ≥ 200 gate · full per-type tables at usetertius.com/benchmarks
Data & method

How these numbers were made.

2.8M
benchmark-pool cases · 2014–2026 filings
30
highest-volume districts ranked
13
nature-of-suit families held constant
n ≥ 200
per-cell gate — thin cells shown as “—”

Within each district we estimate the median time to resolution for every nature-of-suit family using Kaplan–Meier, so cases still pending at the data cutoff are counted rather than dropped. The speed ratio compares a district to the national median within each family, then takes the median across families — holding case mix constant so a heavy social-security docket doesn't masquerade as a fast court.

This note is purely observational; none of its figures come from the Tertius forecasting model. The cleaned data is cross-checked against the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' published Table C-5 statistics (Spearman 0.86–0.88 by district).

Limitations
01Speed ≠ quality

A fast median says nothing about whether a court reaches better outcomes — only how quickly docket entries close.

02Procedural exits

Some record-low medians reflect remands, transfers, and consolidations rather than adjudication (Finding 04). Duration measures time to termination, whatever terminates.

03Selection and composition

Litigants already choose venue where rules allow, and the mix of cases inside each family differs by district — so district gaps partly reflect what is filed there, not only how fast it moves. No causal venue effect is claimed.

04Scope and gating

District cells require n ≥ 200; antitrust has only 7 qualifying cells and carries small-n uncertainty. Timing and disposition only — never merits, damages, or the wisdom of any filing decision.

Not legal advice. Tertius reports timing and disposition only. Venue involves jurisdiction, convenience, and strategy far beyond duration; these estimates describe populations of comparable cases, not the right choice for any individual matter. Corrections, if any, will be noted on this page.
Cite this report
Tertius, The Federal Venue Lottery (2026), analysis of FJC Integrated Data Base records.
https://usetertius.com/research/federal-venue-lottery-2026
Underlying data

The benchmark tables behind this note are public, citable, and queryable at the single-case level.

Browse the benchmarks or query a specific case profile