James S. Moody Jr.

How Judge Moody rules, drawn from 13 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
2000-07-28
Signed orders read
13

How Judge Moody decides

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

What persuades

The court states plainly when the law leaves an injured plaintiff with no remedy at all, rather than obscuring the result. A party arguing preemption is more likely to prevail by showing where the claim falls outside the narrow space Congress left open than by arguing the outcome is fair.

“While Plaintiff can petition the FDA to enforce its regulations, in Florida, Plaintiff currently lacks a judicial remedy to compensate him for the injuries he has sustained.”

Arguments that binding appellate precedent was wrongly decided get a short answer. Counsel should distinguish controlling authority on its facts rather than ask this court to disagree with it.

“To the extent Defendant argues that the Eleventh Circuit's reasoning in Bishop was mistaken, stare decisis gives this Court no more power than to remind Defendant that it may take the matter up with them.”

Cautions

Sprawling pleadings draw an explicit warning. The court has put counsel on notice that future filings departing this far from the pleading rules will be dismissed or sent back for a repleader.

“But this Order shall serve as notice that this Court will no longer accept pleadings that deviate so drastically from the requirements of Rule 8, and will instead either dismiss the pleading upon proper motion or order a repleader.”

A right to arbitrate can be lost by litigating first. A defendant that waits until the case has been fought on the merits risks a holding that the demand came too late.

“It is clear Defendant waived its right to arbitration, if it even had the right to begin with.”

A party that fails to answer a motion should not expect to win by default, but neither will the court grant the motion simply because the response was inadequate; it works through the merits either way.

“But even though Rowe's counsel failed to provide the Court with a meaningful response, the Court cannot simply grant Mentor's motion.”

Signed rulings

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

Barron v. School Board
8:13-cv-31-T-30EAJ · 2014-02-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Resmondo v. New Hampshire Insurance
8:13-cv-2907-T-30EAJ · 2014-09-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as stated herein.”

Herrera v. JFK Medical Center Ltd. Partnership
8:14-cv-2327-T-30TBM · 2015-02-20
Motion for judicial notice (defendant) Granted

“Defendant HCA Holdings, Inc.’s Motion Requesting Judicial Notice and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. # 34) is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Accordingly, HCA and the Defendant Hospitals’ motions to dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim is granted.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“The Court strikes Plaintiffs’ class allegations.”

Marmol v. St. Jude Medical Center
8:15-cv-1276-T-30TGW · 2015-09-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) is GRANTED.”

Scott v. Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc.
8:14-cv-1762-T-30TBM · 2015-11-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 64) is denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“EmCare, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 66) is granted.”

Payne v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
5:15-cv-517-Oc-30PRL · 2016-01-04
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Remand (Doc. 6) is DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Motion to Strike (Doc. 3) is DENIED.”

Diocese of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co.
8:15-cv-1977-T-30AEP · 2016-05-24
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Dkt. 23) is GRANTED.”

Dickens v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership
8:16-cv-803-T-30TGW · 2016-11-14
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant’s liability (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED.”

Class certification (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel (Dkt. 27) is DENIED.”

Schaw v. Habitat for Humanity of Citrus County, Inc.
5:16-cv-311-Oc-30PRL · 2017-07-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Habitat for Humanity of Citrus County, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff Albert Schaw’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is DENIED.”

Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Moot / procedural

“All pending motions are denied as moot.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Rowe v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC
8:17-cv-2438-T-30CPT · 2018-03-02
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 11) is GRANTED IN PART.”

Dickens ex rel. Estate v. GC Servs. Ltd.
8:16-cv-803-T-30TGW · 2018-10-02
Class certification (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of *1381Class Counsel (Dkt. 65) is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 81) is DENIED.”

Gray v. Uber, Inc.
8:18-cv-3093-T-30SPF · 2019-02-27
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay all Court Proceedings (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED.”

Motion for discovery (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“All other pending motions are denied as moot.”

Motion for hearing (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 101.5 days (N = 20).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 34 days (N = 5).

The sampled two-week window produced twenty assignments spanning prisoner habeas and sentence challenges, consumer finance, employment and disability discrimination, trademark, civil rights, and a withdrawal-of-reference request from a bankruptcy proceeding — a mix typical of a Tampa docket, and one where a large share of the matters close quickly on threshold grounds.

Draft for Judge Moody with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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