Carlos E. Mendoza
How Judge Mendoza rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mendoza
Carlos Eduardo Mendoza is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Mendoza received a commission on June 27, 2014.
Judge Mendoza's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Mendoza, 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.
Key rules
Filing
Do not submit separate courtesy copies for electronically filed motions; make every electronically filed PDF full-page and text-searchable.
“When filing motions electronically with the clerk, it is not necessary to provide separate courtesy copies; however, all PDF documents filed electronically should be in full-page, text-searchable format.”
Conferences
Lead trial counsel must attend the final pretrial conference.
“Lead trial counsel’s appearance at the final pretrial conference is mandatory.”
Trial
Provide the court a bench book of exhibits on the first day of trial.
“The court requires a bench book of exhibits to be provided on the first day of trial.”
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 Mendoza decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Kaviani v. Reliance Standard Life, he granted the disability claimant's summary judgment motion and denied the insurer's competing motion.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 38) is GRANTED.”
In Bray, Mendoza treated a bankruptcy discharge as an intervening event that placed later debt-collection claims outside the scope of the mortgage's jury-trial waiver.
“Plaintiffs’ claims in this case arise out of Defendant’s attempts to enforce a debt that was discharged in bankruptcy, as opposed to arising directly from the Mortgage.”
In Cross, Mendoza declined to turn a licensing violation into common-law restitution where the licensing statute did not make the underlying agreements unenforceable.
“Because section 560.204 does not render agreements with money transmitters who are unlicensed thereunder unenforceable, Plaintiff cannot bring common law causes of action for restitution and disgorgement and unjust enrichment on the basis that Defendant was unlicensed.”
In Mighty Men of God, allegations of intentional infringement aimed at a Florida trademark owner supported personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants under the effects test.
“By directly targeting Plaintiff, Defendants’ infringement was ‘aimed at the forum state,’ and by virtue of that fact, Defendants ‘should have anticipated’ that the injury to the Florida-based Plaintiff would be suffered in Florida.”
Procedural preferences
In Rimel v. Uber, he adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted the motion to compel individual arbitration and strike class allegations.
“The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order. 2. Defendants' Motion to Compel and Strike Class Action Allegations (Doc. 23) is GRANTED.”
In federal habeas review, Mendoza enforces procedural default when a state prisoner used the wrong state vehicle or failed to obtain a merits ruling, unless the petitioner establishes cause and prejudice or actual innocence.
“When a state prisoner attempts to raise a claim in an improper manner, and state procedural rules preclude the state courts from hearing the merits of the claim, then the federal habeas court is also precluded from hearing its merits, absent a showing of ‘cause and prejudice.’”
Arguments should be presented to the magistrate judge before objections are filed. Mendoza may decline to consider a new theory raised for the first time in objections to a recommendation.
“Where a party raises an argument for the first time in an objection to a report and recommendation, the district court may exercise its discretion and decline to consider the argument.”
Citations and quotations must be checked against the underlying authority, including in pro se filings. After identifying nonexistent cases and false quotations, Mendoza warned that repeated misrepresentations could lead to sanctions or dismissal with prejudice.
“Plaintiff is hereby advised that any further filings with citations to nonexistent cases or similar misrepresentations may result in sanctions up to and including the dismissal of this case with prejudice.”
In Hill, an express damages cap followed by an unexplained increase after the one-year removal period supported the statutory bad-faith exception and defeated remand.
“Plaintiffs attempt to ‘restrict’ the amount in controversy to avoid removal constitutes bad faith.”
In Grimes, Mendoza denied further amendment after jurisdictional review and sovereign-immunity defects made clear that another complaint could not proceed beyond dismissal.
“Plaintiff cannot plead facts which would support a cause of action beyond the motion to dismiss stage and the Court will not grant leave to amend.”
In an emergency detention case after a removal order was vacated, Mendoza ordered the agreed individualized bond hearing on a short deadline but denied immediate release and a transfer bar. The order left the underlying habeas petition unresolved.
“Respondents agree that Petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing.”
In Ruiz, Mendoza adopted a recommendation to dismiss the consumer-credit complaint without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs a deadline to amend after the original pleading lacked claim-specific facts.
“The Complaint (Doc. 1-1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 61) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order. 2. Defendants' Motion to Compel and Strike Class Action Allegations (Doc. 23) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 72) is GRANTED in part. 2. The Clerk is directed to enter a declaratory Judgment in favor of Plaintiff, providing that Plaintiff has no duty to defend Millennium regarding the claim brought by RHR under the personal injury provisions of the CGL policies.”
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 38) is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 38) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Response and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) is DENIED.”
“THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 163), Defendant Kevin Guice's Response (Doc. 168), and Plaintiffs' Reply (Doc. 175). As set forth below, the motion will be granted.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike will be denied and Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment will be granted.”
“the Town's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Canela's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Haman's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant Ivey's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.”
“The United States' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 157) is GRANTED. 2. Petitioner Sukaina Kermali's Asset Petition (Doc. 125) is DENIED.”
“The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.”
“3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. a. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 4. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 47) is ACCEPTED as timely.”
“Plaintiff’s Motions for Clerk’s Entry of Default (Doc. Nos. 108, 113, 114, 115, 120, 122, 126, 127, 128, 138), Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct (Doc. 137), Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Service of Process (Doc. Nos. 123, 131), Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 140), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Clerk’s Entry of Default (Doc. 142) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 112) are DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The Orlando and Ocala sample includes employment-discrimination, disability-access, product-liability, consumer-credit, insurance, criminal, prisoner, habeas, and state-proceeding civil-rights matters.
- Many recent civil cases ended through settlement or stipulation, while the contested set includes dismissal, summary-judgment, arbitration, remand, and default-judgment rulings.
- The mix is descriptive rather than a complete measure of Mendoza's caseload.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 11 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 21 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 9 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 16 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 20 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 20 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 13 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Mendoza: 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 Mendoza with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mendoza, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mendoza's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace