Embry Jerode Kidd

How Judge Kidd rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
Joe Biden (Democratic)
Commissioned
2025-01-02
Education
Emory University, B.A., 2005; Yale Law School, J.D., 2008
Signed orders read
16

How Judge Kidd decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On a motion to dismiss an FLSA claim, treats the pleading bar as low and reads the complaint generously: a plaintiff need only allege a failure to pay overtime or minimum wages to covered employees, and at the collective stage need only allege that members share similar job requirements and pay provisions. Detailed function-by-function specificity is not required at the pleading stage.

“the requirements to state a claim of a FLSA violation are quite straightforward. The elements that must be shown are simply a failure to pay overtime compensation and/or minimum wages to covered employees and/or failure to keep payroll records in accordance with the Act.”

Will not do a litigant's work for it: an argument mentioned only in passing and not developed is deemed waived. Counsel who want a ground considered must brief it fully.

“But LifeStance does not develop this argument after its brief mention, and therefore, the undersigned will not examine it further ... the court need not consider perfunctory and underdeveloped arguments and that such arguments are waived.”

In a 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) venue analysis, gives a plaintiff's choice of forum only minimal deference when the plaintiff did not sue in its home forum, and in intellectual-property cases weights the locus of operative facts (the alleged infringer's principal place of business, where marketing and development decisions were made) as the controlling consideration.

“where a plaintiff has chosen a forum that is not its home forum, only minimal deference is required, and it is considerably easier to satisfy the burden of showing that other considerations make transfer proper.”

In the substituted Devengoechea opinion, the court required compliance with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Rule 55 before entering a judgment that operates as a default against an absent foreign state. The opinion distinguished ordinary civil litigation.

“And before a district court can enter a default judgment against that foreign state, it must follow the procedural require- ments of Rule 55.”

At sentencing, requires individualized findings before holding one defendant responsible for co-conspirators' losses; will not treat proof of a conspiracy's existence as automatically coextensive with the scope of a particular defendant's jointly undertaken criminal activity, even where the co-conspirators used the same methods and stolen instruments in close time and place.

“the district court committed a legal error when it concluded that 'conspiracy . . . equates to jointly undertaking criminal activity' and then failed to make individualized findings.”

Procedural preferences

In Wilson, new facts presented with a prisoner’s objections required consideration as an amendment or a request for leave to amend. The court applied liberal construction to the pro se filing.

“In this case, we conclude that the district court had two op- tions when undertaking its review of Wilson’s R&R objections:”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Sonate Corporation v. Dunkin' Brands Group, Inc.
6:22-cv-812-WWB-EJK · 2023-01-30
Motions to transfer (defendant) Granted

“On balance, the undersigned finds that the factors discussed above favor transfer and outweigh the Plaintiff's choice of forum. Accordingly, I RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND that the Defendants' Motions to Transfer (Docs. 36, 55) be GRANTED.”

Armand v. LifeStance Health Group, Inc.
6:23-cv-00103 · 2023-10-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Upon consideration of the foregoing, I RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND that the Court DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 28).”

Ricardo Devengoechea v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
24-10029 · 2025-10-01
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“We therefore find that the district court abused its discretion by entering judgment without ensuring that Devengoechea complied with Rule 55. ... We VACATE the district court's judgment and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Todd Joseph Harbuck
23-14007 · 2025-07-28
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We therefore find no error in the district court's determination that Harbuck's conviction for assault with intent to kill qualifies as an ACCA predicate felony offense. ... We AFFIRM the district court's sentence and judgment.”

Jeanne Weinstein v. 440 Corp.
23-13807 · 2025-07-25
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The district court's judgment in favor of the Defendants is AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Abdoulaye Barry
23-12101 · 2026-01-07
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“That conclusion was erroneous, so we vacate Barry's sentence and remand the case to the district court for resentencing. ... We VACATE Barry's sentence and REMAND to the district court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion, as well as to correct the clerical error in Barry's judgment.”

C.B. v. Henry County School District
No. 24-11410 · 2026-02-19
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant (C.B.)) Granted in part

“The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART.”

Tejon v. Zeus Networks, LLC
No. 24-11114 · 2026-05-01
Appeal (defendant-appellant (Zeus Networks, LLC)) Denied

“We AFFIRM the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration.”

Jones v. United States
No. 25-10547 · 2026-07-30
Appeal (plaintiffs-appellants) Granted in part

“We AFFIRM the district court’s order except that portion dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against the TVA under the TVA Act”

Curry v. Warden
No. 24-11128 · 2026-08-04
Appeal (petitioner-appellant (Estella Curry)) Denied

“We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.”

Key v. Dynamic Security, Inc.
No. 24-11069 · 2026-08-05
Appeal (plaintiff-appellant (Davita Key)) Granted in part

“we REVERSE the district court’s rulings as set forth above, we VACATE the district court’s judgment, and we REMAND”

Dish Network L.L.C. v. Fraifer
No. 24-10223 · 2026-08-06
Appeal (defendants-appellants) Denied

“The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Caseload mix is descriptive, drawn from the docket sample; no case-disposition baseline is available for this court and period.

Draft for Judge Kidd with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kidd, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Kidd's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace