Ferdinand F. Fernandez
How Judge Fernandez rules, drawn from 44 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Fernandez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He follows the governing remedial scheme even when a litigant's position has intuitive force, treating positive law as controlling over abstract logic.
“Logic offers some support for his position, but law does not.”
When Congress and circuit precedent have already resolved a statutory terminology issue, he treats attempts to revive the distinction as foreclosed rather than as an invitation to reweigh policy.
“That might be an interesting, if somewhat banausic, argument if Congress and we had not already spoken to the issue.”
He applies the Supreme Court's express limits on an exception as written and leaves any further expansion to that Court.
“We must take the Court at its word.”
In statutory interpretation, he rejects a narrowly technical meaning when the transaction's substance satisfies the operative concept.
“As other courts have recognized, payment is not to be taken in some technical sense, which refers to cash payments alone.”
Cautions
He expects removing counsel to read and comply with clear federal rules; one unambiguous procedural mistake does not excuse another.
“However, his neglect of one clear rule is no anodyne for the damage caused by neglect of another one.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Whatever else ‘order’ might mean under § 844(a) of the Controlled Substances Act, it does not include a mere recommendation from a physician pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act.”
“While Hunton agrees, as he must, that he did procedurally default on his Brady claim, he asserts that he may still pursue it because he was deprived of counsel at his post-conviction relief proceeding.”
“Therefore, we agree with the district court’s ultimate determination and affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision with the clarification and exception noted above.”
“We hold that his arguments about the differences between ‘deported’ and ‘removed’ fail to protect him from the strictures of § 1326(b)(2).”
“Logic offers some support for his position, but law does not.”
“However, his neglect of one clear rule is no anodyne for the damage caused by neglect of another one.”
“We review denials of petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 de novo.”
“We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.”
“Myers appealed, and we affirm.”
“The district court held that Socal became equitably subrogated to the IRS’s claim when it eliminated the Internal Revenue Service’s right of redemption in certain property that once belonged to the Bevans, but had been foreclosed upon by Socal. We disagree and reverse.”
“Congress does have the authority to prescribe, and limit, remedies.”
Draft for Judge Fernandez with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Fernandez, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Fernandez's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace