Anne C. Conway
How Judge Conway rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Conway
Anne C. Conway is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Conway received a commission on November 25, 1991. Judge Conway assumed senior status on August 1, 2015.
Judge Conway's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Conway, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
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 10, 2026).
How Judge Conway decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Silverhorse Racing v. Ford Motor Co., Conway granted Ford partial summary judgment on a tortious interference claim. She held that Ford’s demand letters to distributors were protected petitioning activity, and Silverhorse had offered no evidence that the letters were a sham.
“Absent evidence that Ford’s Demand Letters were a sham, the Noerr Pennington doctrine immunizes Ford from SHR’s tortious interference claim.”
In Masad v. Fine, Conway held that the official's decision to unblock the plaintiff did not moot the viewpoint discrimination claim because the circumstances gave reason to expect the blocking could recur. She nevertheless dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the plaintiff had sued a federal official under Section 1983.
“there is a reasonable basis to believe that Defendant will resume his viewpoint-based blocking of Plaintiff if this action is terminated.”
In an ERISA disability dispute, contemporaneous medical findings and the occupation's generally performed demands supported the administrator's decision. The claimant's evidence did not establish disability throughout the policy's elimination period.
“The evidence does not show that Murray was unable to perform the substantial and material duties of his job for a period of time sufficient to satisfy the Elimination Period in his Policy.”
Procedural preferences
In Silverhorse Racing v. Ford Motor Co., Conway treated Ford's stated facts as undisputed on summary judgment because Silverhorse did not specifically challenge them with pinpoint record citations. Its lengthy affidavit lacked citations to passages that would show a dispute.
“Because SHR fails to properly address Ford’s assertions of fact, the Court considers those facts undisputed.”
In Silverhorse Racing v. Ford Motor Co., Conway denied counsel's stipulation to extend discovery and dispositive motion deadlines because the counterclaim and deadlines had long been in place and no good cause for an extension was shown.
“To the extent the stipulation of counsel seeks relief from Court ordered deadlines it is denied. ... No good cause has been shown for an extension.”
In Boggan v. Benworth Capital Partners, Conway raised the amount-in-controversy issue on her own initiative and remanded the declaratory judgment action. The removing defendant supplied no figures or evidence showing the value of the dispute from the plaintiff’s perspective.
“The Court will not engage in such speculative guesswork.”
In Fusco v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Conway remanded because the employer had not proved the jurisdictional amount. Its broad references to punitive and other damages did not overcome the plaintiff’s concrete evidence of mitigation.
“Resolving all uncertainties in favor of remand, the Court finds that VSS has not proven the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence.”
In one summary judgment dispute, the court preferred full deposition transcripts when parties submitted evidence.
“The Court's preference is for parties to submit entire deposition transcripts.”
Cautions
Plead the correct cause of action against the correct governmental actor. Conway declined to rewrite a counseled complaint framed under Section 1983 when the defendant was a federal official acting under federal law, even though the underlying constitutional theory might have been pleaded differently.
“[s]ection 1983 does not apply to federal actors acting under color of federal law.”
Evidence from foreign regulatory systems may be excluded when presenting it would require distracting mini-trials about different legal standards. In the Seroquel litigation, Conway distinguished the regulators' actions from underlying safety information that might still be admissible for notice or knowledge.
“the fact remains that its probative value is greatly overmatched by the jury confusion, waste of time, and unfair prejudice that would result if the Court were to allow Plaintiffs to introduce this evidence during their main case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER granting 33 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Silverhorse Racing, LLC Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is dismissed.”
“Ford's Motor Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ... Ford is ORDERED to file a Proposed Order setting forth injunctive relief consistent with this Order”
“Silverhorse Racing, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 54) is DENIED.”
Sua sponte jurisdictional remand, not a ruling on a party motion. The disposition states: "This case is hereby REMANDED for lack of jurisdiction to the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida."
“Plaintiff Amjad Masad’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff’s Request for Oral Argument (Doc. 47) is DENIED.”
“Weng and Medina’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Northland Insurance Company’s Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED.”
“The parties’ Joint Stipulation for Severance and Remand of Count III (Doc. No. 11), filed on July 5, 2011, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff Danielle R. Fusco’s Motion to Remand Counts I, II, IV, V, and VI (Doc. No. 15), filed on July 14, 2011, is GRANTED.”
“RLI Insurance Company’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38), filed on January 18, 2011, is GRANTED.”
“AIG Premier Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 37), filed on November 18, 2010, is DENIED.”
“Defendant Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company’s Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19), filed on January 9, 2009, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Appeal From, Objections To, and Motion to Vacate Magistrate Judge’s Order Excluding Evidence and Argument About Foreign Seroquel Labels and Foreign Regulatory Actions (Doc. No. 1288), filed on February 13, 2009, is OVERRULED AND DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Order (Doc. No. 1287), filed on February 13, 2009, is MOOT.”
“The Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner if Social Security pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) so that the Commissioner can develop the record and set forth factual findings as to Plaintiffs capacity to make an adjustment to other work.”
“Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41), filed on May 1, 2009, is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Anna N. Duckworth’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 39), filed on May 1, 2009, is DENIED.”
“State Farm’s Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 45), filed on June 1, 2009, is MOOT.”
“Defendant Netherlands Insurance Co.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32), filed on October 10, 2008, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff John Wade Bailey’s Motion for Summary Judgment On Insurance Coverage Issues (Doc. No. 41), filed on January 28, 2009, is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 171 days (N = 20).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 111 days (N = 5).
- In the reviewed 2016 civil matters, many employment, benefits, and consumer cases settled at mediation within several months.
- Prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters often ended within days or weeks, while a smaller number of commercial disputes continued through contested relief, including a trademark case that reached a permanent injunction after roughly two years.
- The mix is descriptive rather than a complete caseload measure.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Conway: 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 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 49 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,492 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 319 | 14.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,115 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,777 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,781 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,749 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,392 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 6,830 | 5.7 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 Conway with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Conway, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Conway's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace