Nancy G. Abudu
How Judge Abudu rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Abudu
Nancy Gbana Abudu is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Abudu received a commission on May 26, 2023.
Judge Abudu's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Abudu'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 Abudu decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an overtime appeal, Abudu treated sworn testimony based on personal knowledge as capable of creating a factual dispute even when it was self-interested and uncorroborated. A summary-judgment response should identify the witness's personal knowledge and explain how the testimony conflicts with the movant's evidence.
“a party’s ‘self-serving and/or uncorroborated’ testimony can create ‘a genuine dispute concerning an issue of material fact’ if it is based on personal knowledge.”
In a Fair Housing Act appeal, Abudu connected mandatory association rules and access to shared facilities to the legal rights that accompany home ownership. A statutory argument is stronger when it ties the challenged service to the practical and contractual incidents of housing.
“The terms, conditions, and privileges of owning a Joggers Run home as provided in the HOA Rules may not be a matter of life and death for residents, but these contractual rights are part-and-parcel of that planned housing community.”
Reviewing a bankruptcy bench trial, Abudu emphasized that a competing interpretation of the evidence does not establish clear error. An appellate challenge to credibility findings should confront the trial judge's opportunity to observe the witnesses and identify more than another permissible view.
“where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”
In Hicks, the court held that competing evidence about an employee’s reason for entering a container created a jury question about whether he acted within the scope of his employment.
“Whether his mistaken belief concerning the location of his game plans resulted in a deviation ‘so substantial as to constitute a departure from [his] employment’ remains ‘a question of fact for the jury.’”
In an immigration case, Abudu found exhaustion satisfied when the petitioner presented the core compliance issue to the agency, even though he had not anticipated the agency's later rationale. Administrative briefs should squarely present the governing issue and supporting evidence without trying to predict every possible ground for rejection.
“As a matter of logic, Pasqual-Andres did not have an opportunity to challenge the reasoning underlying the BIA’s order before the BIA issued the order. It would be ‘facially nonsensical’ to fault him for failing to raise more specific arguments.”
In her HM Florida-ORL dissent, Abudu treated legislative history as context for statutory purpose and ambiguity while arguing that the preliminary injunction should remain in force.
“Legislative history is not a compet- ing authority to statutory text, but a source of context that can illu- minate statutory purpose, help reveal and resolve interpretive am- biguities, and guard against selective or acontextual readings that distort legislative design.”
Procedural preferences
In Williams, the court considered the evidence cumulatively even after rejecting the proposed comparators. It still found no reasonable inference of discrimination or retaliation on that record.
“However, the McDonnell Douglas framework is not the ex- clusive way a plaintiff can survive summary judgment.”
Cautions
Abudu declined to consider a retaliation claim first introduced in opposition to summary judgment. Plead each claim expressly or seek leave to amend under the proper rule before the case reaches dispositive briefing.
“Despite the liberal pleading standard for civil complaints, plaintiffs may not ‘raise new claims at the summary judgment stage.’”
In a partnership dispute, Abudu treated repeated violations, an untimely cure, and efforts to conceal noncompliance as strong evidence of a material breach. A party claiming cure should show timely, complete performance and candid documentation rather than a partial payment after notice.
“The general partners refused to cease violating the partnership agreements despite repeated warnings, continued to do so after the notice of removal, failed to timely cure, and then attempted to fraudulently cover up that failure.”
In Gutierrez-Romero’s sentence-reduction appeal, she vacated the denial because the district court relied on a clearly erroneous finding about the quantity of cocaine.
“the district court’s implicit conclusion that the severity of Gutierrez-Romero’s original sentence did not reflect the actual amount of cocaine involved is unsupported, and therefore, clearly erroneous.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“we affirm the district court’s judgment.”
“we reverse the district court's order and affirm the bankruptcy court's order of discharge.”
“we reverse in part and vacate in part the district court's grant of summary judgment.”
“we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.”
“we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.”
“we deny Dr. Ashraf's petition for review.”
“we AFFIRM the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's judgment.”
“the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous, its conclusions of law were proper, and we affirm its decision.”
“we affirm Zappey's convictions.”
“we affirm Defilippis's convictions and sentence.”
“we affirm Lebarron's convictions and sentence.”
“PETITION GRANTED.”
Draft for Judge Abudu with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Abudu, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Abudu's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace