L. Scott Coogler
How Judge Coogler rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Coogler no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Coogler
L. Scott Coogler was a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Coogler received a commission on May 28, 2003. Judge Coogler retired on January 2, 2025.
How Judge Coogler decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On FCRA furnisher/CRA summary-judgment motions he refuses to resolve reasonableness or willfulness as a matter of law where the record shows a genuine dispute over whether the furnisher actually followed its own dispute-investigation procedures: he sends the willfulness question to the jury rather than granting the furnisher judgment.
“Based on these facts, where there is a genuine dispute over whether Regions's dispute specialists actually followed Region's procedures in investigating Barwick's disputes and there is a genuine dispute over whether Regions's system itself is fundamentally flawed, a reasonable jury could find that Regions willfully violated the FCRA.”
Cautions
He enforces claim preclusion strictly: a plaintiff who re-files the same claim against the same defendant in his court while (or after) losing a parallel suit elsewhere can expect dismissal with prejudice on res judicata grounds.
“Defendant Hannigan's Motion to Dismiss is due to be GRANTED on grounds of res judicata.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Regions's Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be denied. (Doc. 31.)”
“Defendant Equifax's Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 33.)”
“Defendant Hannigan's Motion to Dismiss is due to be GRANTED on grounds of res judicata.”
“defendant Simpson's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims is due to be granted and the claims are due to be dismissed with prejudice.”
“the defendants' motions for summary judgment are due to be GRANTED, and the claims in the amended complaint are due to be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the court finds that McCall's cross-motion for summary judgment (Docs. 63, 64) is due to be DENIED.”
“the Court dismisses this action. Alternatively, summary judgment is due to be granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 91 days (N = 11).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 71 days (N = 5).
The reviewed cases illustrate Judge Coogler's case mix but do not represent his full docket. Broader case-ending data are unavailable for the later part of the period.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Coogler was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2025.
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Coogler no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.