Timothy J. Corrigan
How Judge Corrigan rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Corrigan
Timothy J. Corrigan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Corrigan received a commission on September 13, 2002. Judge Corrigan assumed senior status on November 2, 2024.
Judge Corrigan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Corrigan, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- ERISA Case Management Report ↗
- Standing Order of Judges Corrigan, Davis, and Howard Notifying Institution Regarding Inmate Claim of Suicidal Intent or Other Imminent Physical Harm ↗
Key rules
Filing
Use Judge Corrigan’s case-management report for ERISA actions.
“For Judge Corrigan’s cases, the parties shall use this Case Management Report (CMR) for actions brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. sec. 1001, et seq.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 10, 2026).
How Judge Corrigan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., Corrigan applied Alice and Mayo and held the challenged financial-transaction patents ineligible because their abstract account-notification and limit ideas added 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.”
In PURIS LLC v. Mayer, he held that the amended complaint was not a shotgun pleading because it gave each defendant fair notice of the claims.
“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.’”
In Norkunas v. Seahorse NB, LLC, he held that the plaintiff’s status as an ADA tester did not by itself defeat standing.
“Plaintiffs capacity as a tester, in and of itself, does not warrant dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
In Johnson & Johnson Vision Care v. Ciba Vision, Corrigan denied a permanent injunction against sales of contact lenses after finding that removing them from the market would create substantial medical, practical, and economic problems for existing users.
“The deleterious effects of the injunction on the general public would simply be too great to permit.”
In Forbes, close timing between a workplace complaint and adverse action supported retaliation claims at the pleading stage, but did not itself connect the action to sex for a discrimination claim. Corrigan allowed amendment of the dismissed counts while the pleaded hostile-environment and retaliation claims proceeded.
“The focus on timeline—an adverse action shortly after a complaint—provides support for his retaliation claims, not his discrimination claims.”
In Grant, Corrigan required allegations connecting a medical contractor's asserted treatment-delay policy to the prisoner's injury. The prisoner's diagnosis followed a routine test and treatment began that month, so the pleaded facts did not support the claimed causal link to the contractor.
“Grant’s claim fails because he cannot show that Centurion’s alleged policy of delaying HCV treatment caused his injuries.”
Procedural preferences
In Bastian v. United Services Automobile Association, Corrigan decided a Florida insurance question concerning sales tax on replacement vehicles, denied the insurers’ summary judgment motion, and certified the controlling legal issue for possible interlocutory appeal because there was substantial ground for differing opinions.
“The Court will therefore certify this Order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).”
In Kirkpatrick v. Kerner, Corrigan found standing for a First Amendment challenge to a driver's-license marking but granted summary judgment for the state official because the claim was time-barred. A later license renewal was a continuing consequence of the original statutory change, not a new violation restarting limitations.
“The 2020 renewal of Kirkpatrick’s driver license is a ‘continued consequence’ of the 2014 amendment, providing no basis to avoid the time bar.”
In Wireless Towers, LLC v. City of Jacksonville, he found that the City had offered some objective evidence of the proposed tower’s visual impact.
“Here, the City has ‘muster[ed] some (even if not much) real evidence of [visual] impact.’”
In Pastures, Corrigan used the prisoner’s sworn account and prison date stamps to find when he handed a notice of appeal to staff for mailing on limited remand.
“Under the prison mailbox rule, the Notice of Appeal is deemed filed on that later date.”
Cautions
In Ratliff v. United Parcel Service, Corrigan denied UPS's summary-judgment motion because Florida's dangerous instrumentality doctrine had no exception for the vehicle delivery at issue. He said that, sitting in diversity, the court would follow Florida Supreme Court precedent rather than create the requested exception.
“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.”
In Glenn, inaccurate citations in a filed memorandum prompted a hearing. The court accepted counsel’s documented corrective steps as sufficient and ordered no further action in that case.
“The Court is satisfied that counsel understands the gravity of his actions and will not repeat them. In the circumstances of this case, the measures counsel has already undertaken are a suitable remedy.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity (Doc. 124) is GRANTED in part and MOOT in part.”
“Defendant Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.'s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 134) is DENIED.”
“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.”
“Defendants' Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Dispositive Counter Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 65, S-68) is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.”
“Defendant Citigroup, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 29) is DENIED.”
“Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 45) is DENIED.”
“Doc. 7, is GRANTED.”
“Doc. 17, is DENIED as moot.”
“(Doc. 45) is GRANTED. This case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“are DENIED.”
“Defendants Ernie Brown and MHE Consulting & Construction Management, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 178) is MOOT.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (Doc. 189) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 72) is DENIED.”
“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.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) is DENIED”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 42) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10) is GRANTED on all claims and counts of the complaint (Doc. 1).”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as provided in the body of this Order.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal.”
“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.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 3 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, not for Judge Corrigan: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 49 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 6,492 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 319 | 14.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 36 | 24.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,896 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,115 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,777 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,781 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,749 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,392 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 6,830 | 5.7 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
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