Susan M. Brnovich
How Judge Brnovich rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brnovich
Susan Marie Brnovich is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Brnovich received a commission on October 23, 2018.
Judge Brnovich's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brnovich, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Criminal Order of Referral ↗
- Final Pretrial Statement - Bench Trial ↗
- Final Pretrial Statement - Jury Trial ↗
- Guidelines for Jury Instructions in Civil Cases ↗
Key rules
Trial
Submit a joint list of proposed civil jury instructions.
“The parties shall submit a joint list of proposed jury instructions.”
Trial
Begin each proposed civil jury instruction on a new page.
“Each proposed instruction shall begin on a new page.”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Brnovich decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hartwig v. American Airlines, she dismissed the FLSA counts under the air-carrier exemption while allowing the Arizona wage claim to proceed.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant American Airlines, Inc. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17). The Motion is granted as to Counts I, II and IV, which are each dismissed without prejudice. The Motion is denied as to Count III.”
Procedural preferences
In Abdulhussain v. MV Public Transportation, she dismissed different claims with different prejudice outcomes and allowed amendment of the defamation claim.
“IT IS ORDERED granting MV's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's federal discrimination and retaliation claims (Counts Two and Three) without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's state law discrimination and wrongful termination/retaliation claims (Count One) with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's defamation claim (Count Four) without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff leave to amend Count Four of his original Complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the entry of this Order.”
In Giambalvo, Brnovich denied a separate attorney fee award because she read the accepted $30,000 offer of judgment as resolving the plaintiff's claims, fees, and costs.
“The Court finds that the Offer precludes Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees.”
Cautions
In Bailey v. P.B. Bell, she granted summary judgment on claims the plaintiff did not address in opposition while allowing other claims to proceed.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 51.) is granted in part and denied in part as explained above.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 16), is denied and ONHIR's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. 20), is granted.”
“IT IS ORDERED granting MV's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's federal discrimination and retaliation claims (Counts Two and Three) without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's state law discrimination and wrongful termination/retaliation claims (Count One) with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's defamation claim (Count Four) without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiff leave to amend Count Four of his original Complaint within twenty-one (21) days from the entry of this Order.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 51.) is granted in part and denied in part as explained above.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Intel's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 45).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11). Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant American Airlines, Inc. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 17). The Motion is granted as to Counts I, II and IV, which are each dismissed without prejudice. The Motion is denied as to Count III.”
“The Court will grant in part and deny in part the parties' respective Motions (Doc. 78; Doc. 81).”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED affirming the December 1, 2023 decision of the ALJ.”
“reviewing the briefing and the relevant case law, the Court will deny the Motion.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs'”
“jurisdiction (Doc 43.) is granted with prejudice.”
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 18 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 18 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 18 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| 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 District of Arizona, not for Judge Brnovich: 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 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 135 | 2.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,001 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 335 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,278 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,126 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,181 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,857 | 20.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,128 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,842 | 9.6 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 Brnovich with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brnovich, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brnovich's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace