Dabney L. Friedrich
How Judge Friedrich rules, drawn from 45 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Friedrich
Dabney Langhorne Friedrich is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Friedrich received a commission on December 1, 2017.
Judge Friedrich's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Friedrich's own (checked October 8, 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 8, 2026).
How Judge Friedrich decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen’s arbitration challenge, she vacated and remanded because the Board’s award did not show consideration of the parties’ agreement.
“Because the Court cannot conclude that the Board considered and interpreted the parties’ agreement, and because Amtrak does not defend the award on jurisdictional grounds, the Court will vacate the award and remand to the Board.”
In ACF Renewable Energy’s award-enforcement suit against Bulgaria, she denied Bulgaria’s motion and granted ACF’s cross-motion.
“the Court will deny Bulgaria’s motion and grant ACF’s cross-motion.”
In Bullock’s agency-review case, she found the Service had offered no analysis connecting its suitability decision to the record.
“That conclusory response does not reflect a reasoned consideration of Bullock’s appeal.”
Procedural preferences
In Menoken v. Lipnic, she dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(b) after the plaintiff repeatedly failed to cooperate in preparing for trial and lesser sanctions would not address the prejudice.
“The Court is not willing to pursue lesser sanctions—such as dismissal without prejudice or further admonishment by the Court—that would delay other litigants’ access to justice because the plaintiff refuses to proceed in good faith.”
In Pond Constructors’ suit against GAO, she addressed jurisdiction even though GAO had not raised it, as Rule 12(h)(3) required.
“GAO did not move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but Rule 12(h)(3) requires a court to dismiss an action if it ‘determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.’”
In Burroughs’s Title VII case, she measured the EEO-contact period from when the plaintiff reasonably suspected discrimination, rather than when she gathered proof.
“the clock begins when a plaintiff suspects or should reasonably suspect discrimination, not when she has obtained the ‘supportive facts necessary to prosecute a discrimination charge.’”
When the plaintiff requested a stay after the court compelled arbitration, Friedrich kept the action pending instead of dismissing it. This order applied the stay required by Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
“ORDERED that Arrington’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, Dkt. 25, is GRANTED; proceedings in this case shall be stayed pending arbitration.”
Cautions
In the Federal Reserve Board’s suit against Smith, she dismissed his counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction because the United States had not waived sovereign immunity.
“the United States does not waive its sovereign immunity by ‘voluntarily seek[ing] the aid of the courts for the collection of its indebtedness.’ ... the Court will dismiss Smith’s counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction.”
In Simmers’s bankruptcy-disclosure dispute, she applied the rule that reliance on counsel’s advice did not excuse omission of a known claim for judicial-estoppel purposes.
“reliance on an attorney’s advice—bad or not—does not relieve the client of the consequences of her own acts for the purposes of judicial estoppel.”
In the Board’s separate pleadings motion against Smith, she denied judgment because his answer raised a release defense the Board had not overcome.
“it remains the Board’s burden to show that it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings in view of the content of Smith’s answer, which does raise a release defense. ... Because the Board has not discharged that burden, the Court will not enter judgment in its favor.”
In the records dispute, Friedrich required facts showing when or how investigators promised sources confidentiality before accepting the agency’s explanation for withholding their identities. She denied summary judgment on those redactions without prejudice and allowed a supplemental declaration.
“Without facts supporting some express promise of confidentiality, the defendants have not carried their burden on the present record.”
In Bullock v. Hana Security Services, Friedrich rejected a due-process theory first raised in summary-judgment briefing because it was absent from the complaint.
“that claim was not pleaded in his complaint and may not be raised for the first time in briefing on summary judgment.”
In Truesdale v. District of Columbia, she denied Rule 60(b) relief after finding that counsel’s alleged failure to develop the evidentiary record did not amount to abandonment of the client.
“a failure to marshal evidence sufficient to survive summary judgment does not, without more, establish the gross neglect or abandonment necessary to justify relief from judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment, Dkt. 16, is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Order, Dkt. 24, is denied as moot.”
“ORDERED that Harden’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that the defendant Harden be dismissed from this case.”
“the Court will grant the Board’s motion to dismiss Smith’s counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction.”
“because Smith asserts an affirmative defense to which the Board has not responded, the Court will deny the Board’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
“the Court grants the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denies the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, vacates the National Railroad Adjustment Board’s award, and remands for further proceedings”
“the Court grants the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denies the defendant’s motion for summary judgment”
“the Court will grant in part the motion to dismiss and transfer the case to the District of Maryland.”
“Given the plaintiff’s extreme, dilatory, and unprofessional conduct, the Court concludes that dismissal of this action with prejudice is appropriate under Rule 41(b).”
“the Court dismisses the case under Rule 12(h)(3) and denies GAO’s motion, Dkt. 12, as moot.”
“ORDERED that the Department’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 62, is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Gebert’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. 64; Gebert’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 69; and the Department’s Motion to Strike, Dkt. 74, are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Gebert’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 69; ... are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Before the Court is the Service’s Motion to Dismiss and partial Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 108, and Bullock’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 109. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant both motions in part.”
“the Court will grant both motions in part.”
“pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1), this case is dismissed without prejudice. The defendants’ pending motions to dismiss are denied as moot.”
“Before the Court is Amtrak’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 6. For the following reasons, the Court will grant that motion.”
“the Court will deny Bulgaria’s motion and grant ACF’s cross-motion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 281 days (N = 15).
The reviewed cases include federal agency disputes, employment, environmental, hospital, contract, and public-records matters. These selected cases do not measure the judge’s overall assignment mix.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 29 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 29 |
| Sep 2025 | 5 | 32 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 30 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 27 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 26 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 25 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 18 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 6 | 17 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 12 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 5 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not for Judge Friedrich: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 876 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,449 | 8.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 53.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,290 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,288 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,044 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,408 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,947 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,963 | 5.1 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Friedrich with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Friedrich, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Friedrich's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace