Charlene Edwards Honeywell
How Judge Honeywell rules, drawn from 42 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Honeywell
Charlene Vanessa Edwards Honeywell is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Honeywell received a commission on November 12, 2009. Judge Honeywell assumed senior status on December 4, 2023.
Judge Honeywell's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Honeywell'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 10, 2026).
How Judge Honeywell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Miller v. Ginny's, Honeywell denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion because her sworn account of orally revoking consent to telephone calls conflicted with the creditor's records. Resolving that dispute would require a credibility finding.
“In doing so, the Court concludes that the evidence regarding Miller's oral revocation of consent is disputed.”
Four-corners discipline on Rule 12(b)(6) in Medical & Chiropractic v. Oppenheim: struck extrinsic exhibits appended to a reply and declined to convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, telling defendants to raise the materials on a proper Rule 56 motion instead.
“In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the district court may consider an extrinsic document if it is (1) central to the plaintiffs claim, and (2) its authenticity is not challenged.”
Emergency relief does not cure a defective pleading. In Lead Creation, she first denied an ex parte TRO without prejudice and dismissed the complaint because every count incorporated all preceding allegations and counts. After an amended pleading, she granted a fourteen-day TRO with a $10,000 bond, asset restraint, and expedited discovery.
“This form of pleading is exactly the type repeatedly condemned by the Eleventh Circuit.”
A challenge to discretionary agency action needs concrete allegations that binding procedures were violated. In Onyenanu, conclusory process allegations earned one chance to amend; the amended complaint still failed because its exhibits showed that the agency explained its decision and the requested merits review was jurisdictionally barred.
“Plaintiff’s allegations fall short.”
Online trademark allegations must connect the alleged conduct to the selected forum. In Purple Innovation, nationwide marketplace availability did not establish venue because the complaint did not identify where deceived customers bought the accused products, and conclusory alter-ego allegations did not establish personal jurisdiction over individual defendants. Practice signal: plead forum-specific sales or access and concrete corporate-control facts rather than relying on nationwide availability or legal labels.
“Here, the Complaint alleges that Defendants passed off their goods as Purple’s on a variety of online marketplaces, but it lacks any allegations whatsoever regarding the location of the consumers who were deceived by the alleged infringement.”
In an FLSA retaliation case, Honeywell allowed a claim based on a complaint about per diem travel pay to proceed because whether that pay functioned as overtime compensation required a factual record. The court declined to use summary judgment decisions to resolve that pleading-stage question.
“The summary judgment stage requires a different legal standard than the present motion to dismiss.”
Cautions
In Byrnes v. Small, she admonished plaintiff's counsel under ABA Model Rule 3.3 for misrepresenting service and denial dates that were material to the remand analysis.
“The Court will not tolerate any further misrepresentations such as this one, which evinces, at best, a reckless disregard of the duty of candor to the Court.”
In Winiewski, Honeywell denied a Rule 35(a) request because the sentencing record did not support the defendant’s claim that she used a codefendant’s sentence as a required minimum.
“Defendant’s allegation that the Court used his codefendant’s sentence as a floor in his own sentencing is unfounded, as it is not supported by the record.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and Authorize Notice to Putative Opt-In Plaintiffs and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 108) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and the First-Filed Action Doctrine or, in the Alternative, to Stay (Doc. 31) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Strike all References to Materials Outside of the Complaint in Defendants' Reply (Doc. 61) is GRANTED. Exhibits A-C of Defendants Reply (Doc. 59) is STRICKEN.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Doc. 21) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Marguerite Miller's Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 24) is DENIED.”
“The Court, having considered the parties submissions and being fully advised in the premises, will grant, in part, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all claims pertaining to the May 1, 2013 fax. In all other respects, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be denied.”
“The Court, having considered the motions and being fully advised in the premises, will grant the motions.”
“In the motion, Plaintiff contends that class certification should be granted because the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been met. The Court, having considered oral arguments, the parties' submissions, and being fully advised in the premises will deny the motion.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 43) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count III of the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED without prejudice, and Beardsley's motion to dismiss counts IV and V against him is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II is DENIED with respect to both UNATION and Beardsley, and is DENIED with respect to Counts IV and V against UNATION.”
“Defendants' Cirrus Design Corporation and Cirrus Industries, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 66, 27 (as to the Skinners)) is GRANTED. Defendant Kavlico Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. 78, 38 (as to the Skinner Plaintiffs)) is GRANTED. Defendants Cirrus Design Corporation, Cirrus Industries, Inc. and Kavlico Corporation are DISMISSED from this case.”
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 57) is DENIED; Defendants' Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 67) is DENIED; and Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 68) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 73) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 77) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 102) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed Tampa matters include numerous False Claims Act and criminal cases, while the later motion-bearing sample adds habeas, immigration, premises-liability removal, consumer-default, patent emergency-relief, online-trademark, and civil-rights disputes. The mix is descriptive rather than a complete measure of Honeywell'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 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Honeywell: 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 Honeywell with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Honeywell, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Honeywell's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace