Charlotte Noelle Sweeney
How Judge Sweeney rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Sweeney decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
She imposes evidentiary spoliation sanctions where a party intentionally destroys evidence, barring a defense theory and shifting fees.
“the Court ADOPTS WITH MODIFICATIONS, as outlined above, Magistrate Judge Braswell's Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 89, and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 61.”
In an intimate-image disclosure action, allegations of ongoing prohibited disclosure and serious privacy harm supported pseudonym protection and an ex parte temporary restraining order without advance notice.
“Given this, and in light of Plaintiff’s representation that Defendant has already engaged in the same statutorily prohibited conduct that Plaintiff now seeks to enjoin, the Court finds good cause to excuse the notice requirement in Rule 65(b)(1)(B).”
Procedural preferences
Sweeney frequently hears oral argument and rules from the bench on summary judgment, parsing employment claims one by one and preserving viable claims (for example, denying summary judgment on a failure-to-accommodate claim while granting it on disability-discrimination and retaliation claims).
“ORDERED: [23] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; granted as to the discrimination claim based on disability and retaliation, denied as to the failure to accommodate claim.”
Cautions
On aggressive pro se post-judgment practice she denies omnibus Rule 59/60 motions in full: recusal under 28 U.S.C. 455 is purely objective and adverse rulings are grounds for appeal not recusal, Rule 60 cannot be used to relitigate the merits, and a complaint cannot be amended until the judgment is vacated.
“Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Revocation of Final Judgement [sic], Recusal of Magistrate Judge and District Court Judge, Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint, and Request for Advisement to Defendants is DENIED in its entirety (ECF No. 77).”
Emergency temporary-restraint requests require prospective, non-speculative harm; a motion based on completed past events does not establish that element.
“Plaintiffs’ motion is premised on past events. That’s improper for securing a TRO.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Revocation of Final Judgement [sic], Recusal of Magistrate Judge and District Court Judge, Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint, and Request for Advisement to Defendants is DENIED in its entirety (ECF No. 77).”
“ORDERED: [52] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“ORDERED: [23] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; granted as to the discrimination claim based on disability and retaliation, denied as to the failure to accommodate claim.”
“the Court ADOPTS WITH MODIFICATIONS, as outlined above, Magistrate Judge Braswell's Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 89, and grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. 61.”
“Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED”
“the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 2, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion To Proceed Under a Pseudonym With Incorporated Authority, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Immediate (Ex Parte) Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Certified Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). ECF No. 4.”
“It likewise DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs’ pending motions to reassign this case”
“The Court REVERSES IN PART the Recommendation, and therefore GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 45.”
“Defendant’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order Granting Court-Authorized Notice. ECF No. 79, are almost entirely OVERRULED. They are SUSTAINED only as to Defendant’s objection to the magistrate judge’s determination that a 90-day opt-in period is proper.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Stay Production of Class List and Dissemination of Notice Pending Ruling on Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order Re: Conditional Certification, ECF No. 80, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 48, is DENIED.”
“GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, ECF No. 62.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 8th Supplemental Expert Disclosures is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Two terminated civil-case durations are available, a small set for a judge commissioned in 2022. The contested cases reviewed were reassigned to her on appointment and decided on the merits, so they reflect her rulings even though they were filed shortly before she took the bench.
Draft for Judge Sweeney with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sweeney, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sweeney's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace