Henry Lee Adams Jr.

How Judge Adams rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Position
district
Status
Senior status
Appointed by
William J. Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1993-11-24
Education
Florida A&M University, B.S., 1966; Howard University School of Law, J.D., 1969
Signed orders read
11

How Judge Adams decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

When a defendant showed that collection calls resulted from a reasonable database search and that its procedures were designed to avoid third-party disclosures, Adams accepted the statutory bona-fide-error defense on summary judgment.

“CBE’s error in calling Mr. Tucker was unintentional and occurred despite procedures reasonably adapted to avoid a FDCPA violation.”

In an Equal Access Act dispute, Adams required evidence tying the proposed student club itself to a genuine disruption; an isolated event involving one member at another school did not establish that connection.

“one incident involving one Alliance member’s behavior at a different school regarding a different event does not amount to actual evidence the current high school club itself, or recognition of its name, will cause a material disruption.”

Adams enforced an ERISA plan's mandatory forum-selection clause where the plaintiff did not show exceptional public-interest circumstances against transfer.

“The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that public-interest factors overwhelmingly disfavor a transfer.”

Cautions

Broad, undeveloped requests to exclude expert testimony may be rejected as premature; identify the precise testimony, governing methodology, and reason for exclusion.

“the Court agrees with Plaintiff that this blanket argument is vague and premature.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Rhinehart v. CBE Group, Inc.
3:09-cv-00311 · 2010-05-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED; the clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.”

United States v. Lott
3:06-cr-00063 · 2011-10-27
Motions to compel (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 81) and Motion for Subpoena Pursuant to F.R.Crim.P. § 17(a), (b), (c) (Dkt. 82) are DENIED.”

Motion for subpoena (defendant) Denied
Motion for writ of mandamus (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s Motion for Writ of Mandamus (Dkt. 85) and Motion to Expedite Ruling on Motion to Compel (Dkt. 89) are DENIED as moot.”

Motion to expedite (defendant) Moot / procedural
Gay-Straight Alliance of Yulee High School v. School Board of Nassau County
3:09-cv-00112 · 2009-03-11
Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs) Granted

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 2) is GRANTED;”

Motion to waive bond (plaintiffs) Granted

“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Waive Bond (Dkt. 6) is GRANTED; the Court waives the security requirement set forth in Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. 16) is DENIED as moot.”

Tucker v. CBE Group, Inc.
3:09-cv-00134 · 2010-05-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.19) is GRANTED; the clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.”

Sehringer v. Big Lots, Inc.
3:07-cv-00354 · 2007-10-03
Motion to dismiss and quash service (defendant) Denied

“The Motion to Dismiss and Quash Service of Process (Dkt.3) is DENIED:”

Request for evidentiary hearing (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Request for an Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt.14) is DENIED;”

Motion for order directing clerk to issue summons (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Directing Clerk to Issue Summons (Dkt.16) is DENIED as moot;”

APR Energy, LLC v. Pakistan Power Resources, LLC
3:08-cv-00961 · 2009-08-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant, Pakistan Power Resources, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 99) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The Motion is denied as to Counts I, II, and III. The Motion is granted as to Counts VI and VII.”

Osterback v. McDonough
2:04-cv-00210 · 2008-03-25
Motion to terminate injunction (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ Motion to Terminate Revised Offer of Judgment (Doc. # 681) is GRANTED. The injunctive relief contained in the Order Entering Defendants’ Revised Offer of Judgment (Doc. # 383) is hereby TERMINATED in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act.”

Adams v. Gilead Group, LLC
3:16-cv-01566 · 2017-11-17
Motion to conditionally certify collective action (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action (Dkt.16) is GRANTED to the extent discussed in this Order;”

Motion for leave to file reply (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs Motion to File Reply (Dkt. 45) is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations or before December 8, 2017 if he cannot reach an agreement with Defendants regarding same;”

Chiles v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
3:06-cv-00096 · 2013-02-07
Motion to apply new jersey law (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion To Apply New Jersey Law To Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Demand (Dkt. 83) is GRANTED;”

Motion to exclude expert (defendant) Denied

“Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Suzanne Parisian (Dkt. 117) is DENIED without prejudice.”

Loeffelholz v. Ascension Health, Inc.
3:13-cv-01495 · 2014-06-25
Motion for leave to file reply (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Reply (Dkt. 15) is DENIED.”

Motion to dismiss or transfer venue (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED in part. Specifically, this case shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.”

Kennedy v. CompuCredit Holdings Corp.
3:12-cv-01128 · 2014-03-31
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 46) is DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 32 days (N = 10).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 69 days (N = 10).

The fixed-seed 2015 cohort included habeas and prisoner matters that often closed within days or weeks, alongside disability, civil-rights, ADA, and fraud cases. The longer matters included a Social Security appeal and an employment dispute; the ten-case duration median was 32 days. This bounded cohort describes the sampled matters rather than the judge's full caseload.

Draft for Judge Adams with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Adams, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Adams's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace