Adalberto Jose Jordan
How Judge Jordan rules, drawn from 42 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jordan
Adalberto Jose Jordan is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Jordan received a commission on February 17, 2012. Judge Jordan previously served on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, commissioned there on September 9, 1999.
Judge Jordan's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Jordan's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court 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 11, 2026).
How Judge Jordan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Hobbs Act case, he held that a taking is not robbery under the statute unless force or threatened force occurs before or during the taking.
“We hold today that a taking of property does not constitute robbery under the Hobbs Act unless force or threatened force is used before or during the taking.”
In a DMCA dispute, he rejected Athos’s proposed expansion of a safe-harbor obligation because changing the statutory balance between owners and providers was a matter for Congress.
“Athos’ approach would have us upset the balance between copyright owners and service providers struck by Congress in the DMCA. If that balance is to be recalibrated, it is a matter for Congress.”
In a benefits case, he declined deferential review of the plan administrator’s interpretation because the plans’ language was clear.
“Even if we assume that a grant of discretion can lead to deferential review of benefits decisions in certain scenarios, such deference is not warranted here given the clear language of the plans.”
Writing for the en banc court in Bolton, Jordan rejected a judicially imposed exhaustion requirement for ERISA statutory claims because the statute contains no such command. The opinion left benefits-denial claims under plan terms outside its holding.
“ERISA does not contain an exhaustion requirement for statutory claims.”
Procedural preferences
In an appeal involving an undeveloped discovery record with no depositions, he declined to resolve fact-dependent issues in the first instance.
“As noted, the parties did not take any depositions during discovery. So we are hesitant to resolve these issues on the record as it stands.”
In a jury-verdict appeal, he applied the governing standard of review, which heavily favors preserving the jury’s verdict.
“This standard is heavily weighted in favor of preserving the jury’s verdict.”
In Owoc, the court remanded the laches issue for reconsideration after reversing the underlying property-of-the-estate ruling, leaving the bankruptcy court to assess prejudice and tax consequences in the first instance.
“It makes little sense for us to review the bankruptcy court’s decision to apply laches when the property of the estate issue un- dergirds that decision.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Mr. Moss' application for leave to file a second or successive motion to vacate is GRANTED.”
“Following a review of the record, we affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court's well-reasoned order dated January 14, 2014. See D.E. 72. AFFIRMED.”
“APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“As to the trustees' other arguments, we affirm on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned order. AFFIRMED.”
“The vocational expert's testimony as to available jobs, on which the ALJ relied, was significantly and admittedly flawed. We therefore vacate the district court's order and remand for another hearing before the ALJ.”
“With the benefit of oral argument, we now affirm.”
“AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.”
“In ruling that diversity jurisdiction was lacking, the district court committed two errors, one procedural and one substantive. Each one provides an independent basis for reversal.”
“We nonetheless affirm because, on this record, the district court's factual findings under 2D1.1(b)(1) foreclosed relief under 5C1.2(a)(2).”
“Following oral argument and a review of the record, we affirm. ... We agree with the district court that a five-day suspension with pay does not constitute adverse action for purposes of a First Amendment retaliation claim.”
“Following oral argument, we affirm. Although Follies had a vested right in its 2018 liquor license, that vested right did not extend to the hours in which alcohol could be sold.”
“The district court should not have alternatively denied the construed motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act without giving Mr. Smith the opportunity to present his factual and legal arguments in support of relief. We therefore reverse the court's order denying the construed motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED.”
Draft for Judge Jordan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jordan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jordan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace