Marcia Morales Howard
How Judge Howard rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Howard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Haddad, the state's fundamental-alteration defense to home-based disability services could not defeat the claim where the complaint itself alleged lower community-care costs, prolonged waiting, and no effectively moving placement plan.
“After a thorough review of Plaintiffs Complaint, the Court readily concludes that Defendants’ fundamental alteration defense is not established as a matter of law on the face of Plaintiffs Complaint.”
In Epolito, the insurer's contractual reimbursement right did not establish equitable relief without proof that the specific overpaid funds remained identifiable in the participant's possession.
“However, Prudential has not submitted any evidence that those overpaid benefits still remain in Epolito’s possession such that the Court could impose an equitable lien on those particular funds.”
In Beane, Howard upheld leaving a complex tax dispute with the specialized court where it had been pending for more than a year and was ready for trial when bankruptcy was filed.
“At the time Beane filed for bankruptcy, the tax court proceeding had been pending for over one year and was set to go to trial in seven days.”
In Crisp, the defendant's lack of a legitimate privacy interest in a rental van resolved suppression before the court needed to reach abandonment or inventory-search validity.
“As the Court finds that Defendant never had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle, it is not necessary for the Court to consider the other arguments raised by the government and Defendant.”
Procedural preferences
In Howard v. Hartford, Howard allowed relevant employee-benefits discovery before summary judgment and declined to fragment the case into a premature, potentially wasteful sequence of rulings.
“summary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Heartland Dental, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint ... (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. a. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Count Two of the Amended Complaint ... is DISMISSED. b. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Diamond State Insurance Company's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50) is DENIED, in part, and DENIED without prejudice, in part. A. The Motion is DENIED with respect to Diamond State's duty to defend.”
“Boys' Home Association, Inc.'s ... Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED without prejudice, in part. A. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent the Court declares that Diamond State owes Boys' Home a duty to defend in the Underlying Action.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 25) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Transfer Venue and Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED.”
“The Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants Joshua Gilliland and Chawalit Wongkhiao (Doc. 53) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendant DB & PR's Motion to Dismiss Counts III and V of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 4) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART. A. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks the dismissal of Count III for false arrest under Florida law. B. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Defendant Baker's Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN PART. A. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks the dismissal of Count II for false arrest under Florida law. B. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 49) is DENIED, as moot.”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike Affidavit of David C. Hicks (Doc. 73) is DENIED, as moot.”
“Defendant's Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. 65) is GRANTED.”
“J.P. Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Inc.'s Renewed Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 73) is GRANTED to the extent that J.P. Morgan Chase National Corporate Services, Inc. seeks dismissal of the Beepots' Amended Complaint.”
“Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Amend the Complaint Signed by Each Plaintiff (Doc. 107) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Gerald L. Ford's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant City of Lake City's Motion for Summary Judgment (A Dispositive Motion) and Memorandum of Law (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 28) is DENIED.”
“the Court has found that the arguments presented in Estrada's Motions do not warrant the requested relief.”
“the Court has found that Estrada's New Trial Motion is denied.”
“T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration (Doc. 9) is GRANTED and this case is STAYED pending the completion of arbitration.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 587 days (N = 3).
As Chief Judge, her most recent reviewed filings are dominated by a 2026 increase in alien-detainee habeas petitions from the Baker County and North Florida detention facilities, alongside copyright, employment, and civil-rights cases. This recent group provides descriptive context rather than a complete caseload measure.
Draft for Judge Howard with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Howard, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Howard's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace