Timothy J. Corrigan

How Judge Corrigan rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Appointed by
George W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
2002-09-13
Education
University of Notre Dame (B.A., 1978); Duke University School of Law (J.D., 1981)
Signed orders read
15

How Judge Corrigan decides

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

What persuades

Applies the Alice/Mayo framework to patent-eligibility challenges, invalidating claims drawn to an abstract idea implemented on generic computers that add no inventive concept.

“Defendant Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity (Doc. 124) is GRANTED in part and MOOT in part.”

At the dismissal stage in a multi-defendant RICO case, he tests whether the complaint gives each defendant fair notice and plausibly pleads each theory, rather than treating complexity or length as shotgun pleading by itself.

“The First Amended Complaint is not a shotgun pleading; each Defendant has been satisfactorily apprised of the claims against them.”

In Fair Housing Act accommodation cases, a lengthy delay after a supported request can amount to constructive denial, but competing evidence about when the duty arose and whether alternatives were promptly offered can require trial rather than judgment for either side.

“The failure to make a timely determination after meaningful review amounts to constructive denial of a requested accommodation, ‘as an indeterminate delay has the same effect as an outright denial.’”

Recognizes ADA tester standing when the evidence shows repeated visits and a credible, nonspeculative intent to return. A plaintiff's enforcement motive alone does not defeat standing, though relief remains limited to barriers known to the plaintiff and related to the plaintiff's disability.

“Plaintiffs capacity as a tester, in and of itself, does not warrant dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

In patent cases, weighs the practical public consequences of an injunction rather than presuming exclusion must follow infringement. The cost and health disruption to millions of contact-lens users outweighed the requested equitable relief.

“The deleterious effects of the injunction on the general public would simply be too great to permit.”

Procedural preferences

Exercises doctrinal restraint on questions of first impression, certifying a controlling question for interlocutory appeal rather than deciding it on policy grounds.

“Defendants' Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is DENIED.”

He separates standing from timeliness and does not treat later renewals or ongoing effects as new violations when they are merely continued consequences of the original challenged act.

“The 2020 renewal of Kirkpatrick’s driver license is a ‘continued consequence’ of the 2014 amendment, providing no basis to avoid the time bar.”

On review of local telecom zoning, does not reweigh the governing body's evidence once the record contains objective support for its aesthetic judgment. Photo simulations and testimony supplied the necessary evidence of visual impact in Wireless Towers.

“Here, the City has ‘muster[ed] some (even if not much) real evidence of [visual] impact.’”

Cautions

Declines to extend a state-law doctrine that a federal court sitting in diversity should leave to the legislature or the state supreme court, denying summary judgment premised on such an extension.

“Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) is DENIED.”

Repeated amendment does not prevent dismissal with prejudice when the operative complaint remains shotgun and the alleged facts still do not support municipal liability, clearly established individual liability, or the required state-law bad-faith exception.

“Even if the shotgun pleading issues could be fixed, the scenario Hoffman alleges simply is not the stuff of a viable Section 1983 or state law claim.”

Temporal proximity does not establish retaliation when many months separate protected conduct and termination and the record supplies no other causation evidence.

“these intervals are too long as a matter of law to prove causation and Smith does not offer any other proof.”

A qualified expert's credentials cannot substitute for a reliable connection between the proposed defect and the product failure. Where an old used tire had an unknown history and the expert could not exclude alternative causes, the theory remained speculative.

“plaintiffs tire expert is forced to make key concessions and otherwise has constituted a theory of liability which is unsupported by any evidence and which devolves into speculation and conjecture.”

Signed rulings

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

Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
3:13-cv-00781 · 2015-08-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity (Doc. 124) is GRANTED in part and MOOT in part.”

Motion for sanctions (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.'s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 134) is DENIED.”

Crowley Maritime Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA
3:16-cv-00432 · 2018-02-08
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant National Union's converted Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant ... and close the file.”

Bastian v. United Services Automobile Ass'n (USAA)
3:13-cv-01454 · 2015-12-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs' Dispositive Counter Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 65, S-68) is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.”

McCurry v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (Citigroup)
3:16-cv-00187 · 2016-09-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Citigroup, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 29) is DENIED.”

Ratliff v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
3:15-cv-00890 · 2016-10-31
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) is DENIED.”

Mann Utilities, Inc. v. WLM Contracting, Inc. and Great Midwest Insurance Company
5:24-cv-267-TJC-PRL · 2024-11-22
Motions to transfer (defendant) Granted

“Doc. 7, is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Doc. 17, is DENIED as moot.”

Hoffman v. Nassau County
3:24-cv-01369-TJC-PDB · 2026-08-07
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, With Prejudice, and, in the Alternative, to Strike Certain Requests for Relief (Doc. 45) is GRANTED. This case is dismissed with prejudice.”

PURIS LLC v. Andrew J. Mayer
3:25-cv-00157-TJC-SJH · 2026-08-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“are DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Moot / procedural

“Defendants Ernie Brown and MHE Consulting & Construction Management, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 178) is MOOT.”

Motion to seal (plaintiffs) Granted

“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (Doc. 189) is GRANTED.”

Barrett v. Creative Choice Homes XXIV Ltd
3:23-cv-01169-TJC-PDB · 2026-08-05
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 72) is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 80) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Count I and Count II but GRANTED as to Barrett’s request for punitive damages.”

Kirkpatrick v. Kerner
3:23-cv-01180-TJC-LLL · 2026-07-30
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) is DENIED”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42) is GRANTED.”

Smith v. AirTran Airways, Inc.
3:09-cv-00582 · 2010-10-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) is GRANTED on all claims and counts of the complaint (Doc. 1).”

Norkunas v. Seahorse NB, LLC
3:09-cv-00934 · 2010-06-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as provided in the body of this Order.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal.”

Motions to compel (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Doc. 19) is DENIED without prejudice to refiling after conferral with Defendant to see if the issues can be resolved.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 567 days (N = 5).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 320 days (N = 17).

The reviewed Jacksonville civil matters filed from 2018 through 2021 include insurance, wage-and-hour, contract, civil-rights, prisoner, aviation, and trademark cases. Judge Corrigan, a long-serving jurist, took senior status in November 2024 and remains active. This group provides descriptive context rather than a complete caseload measure.

Draft for Judge Corrigan with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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