James D. Whittemore

How Judge Whittemore rules, drawn from 19 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
2000-05-25
Signed orders read
19

How Judge Whittemore decides

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

What persuades

Where a policy defines coverage by reference to a licensing category, the court applies that definition literally and asks only what the facility was actually licensed to do.

“The facility in which Betty Kendall resided was not 'licensed by the appropriate licensing agency to engage primarily- in providing nursing care and related services to inpatients' and therefore does not constitute a 'nursing home' under the terms of the Policy.”

Cautions

A pleading defect is often cured rather than fatal, but the repair window is short and fixed: expect a two-week deadline to amend rather than an open-ended invitation.

“Plaintiffs FCCPA claim (Count I) is limited to a maximum $1,000 statutory award, and the FCRA claim (Count II) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted fourteen (14) days to amend Count II.”

Signed rulings

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

Baranowski v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co.
8:17-cv-301-T-27TGW · 2019-04-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Upon consideration, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED as moot .”

Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Kendall v. Genworth Life Insurance Co.
8:15-cv-2328-T-27AAS · 2016-06-22
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“Upon consideration, the Motion is GRANTED. The facility in which Betty Kendall resided was not 'licensed by the appropriate licensing agency to engage primarily- in providing nursing care and related services to inpatients' and therefore does not constitute a 'nursing home' under the terms of the Policy.”

Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co.
8:16-cv-952-JDW-AAS · 2018-09-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Upon consideration, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 98) is GRANTED . Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 91) is DENIED as moot.”

Class certification (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Arianas v. LVNV Funding LLC
8:14-cv-01531-T-27EAJ · 2015-06-25
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Upon consideration, the motions are DENIED, except that Plaintiff will be granted leave to add claims for punitive damages.”

Motion for extension of time (plaintiff) Denied
Pecora v. ADP, LLC
8:15-cv-1867-T-27AEP · 2017-02-07
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Upon consideration, Defendant's motion is GRANTED on Plaintiffs FMLA retaliation, ADA, and FCRA claims, and DENIED on his FMLA interference claim.”

Arkin v. Innocutis Holdings, LLC
8:16-cv-0321-T-27TBM · 2016-05-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Upon consideration, the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Arkin v. Innocutis Holdings, LLC
8:16-cv-0321-T-27TBM · 2016-04-01
Motions to stay (defendant) Denied

“Upon consideration, the motion to stay (Dkt.13) is DENIED.”

United States v. Riascos
8:12-cr-275-T-27AEP · 2016-01-25
Motion for clarification (defendant) Denied

“Upon consideration, the Mption for Clarification (Dkt. 121) is DENIED. Notwithstanding, an explanation of the order reducing Defendant's sentence (Dkt.119) is provided.2 Defendant's Motion to Extend Time to- File Notice of Appeal (Dkt. 122) is DENIED as moot.”

Motion for extension of time (defendant) Moot / procedural
Vexler v. Baruch (In re Baruch)
8:15-cv-1906-T-27 · 2016-09-08
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant) Denied

“Upon consideration, the Bankruptcy Court's Order is AFFIRMED. I conclude that compliance with the credit counseling requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 109(h) is not jurisdictional and therefore the Bankruptcy Court did not err in dismissing, rather than striking, j;he petition.”

Garrett v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
8:14-cv-686-T-27AEP · 2015-05-08
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Upon consideration, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 19) is DENIED. After careful consideration of the record, the Court concludes that Prudential's decision to deny Plaintiffs claim for long-term disability benefits was not wrong or unreasonable.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Rodriguez v. School Board
8:13-cv-01445-T-27AEP · 2014-10-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Upon consideration, Defendant's motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.”

Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Homaday v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
8:13-cv-1244-T-27TGW · 2014-01-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Upon consideration, the motion (Dkt. 51) is DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 117.5 days (N = 20).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 4 days (N = 17).

The sampled cases span prisoner petitions, employment and consumer suits, admiralty, patent, forfeiture and social security appeals, which is the ordinary mix for a Tampa civil docket.

Draft for Judge Whittemore with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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