Virginia M. Hernandez Covington
How Judge Covington rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Covington
Virginia Maria Hernandez Covington is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Covington received a commission on September 10, 2004. Judge Covington assumed senior status on July 12, 2020.
Judge Covington's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Covington, 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.
Key rules
Filing
Provide a courtesy copy when an electronically filed motion exceeds 100 pages including attachments.
“When filing motions electronically, it is not necessary to submit a courtesy copy to chambers unless the motion exceeds 100 pages in length, including exhibits and attachments.”
Motions
A summary judgment motion must include a Statement of Material Facts with separately numbered facts and pinpoint record citations.
“Each motion for summary judgment must include a section titled ‘Statement of Material Facts.’ The statement of material facts must list each material fact alleged not to be disputed in separate, numbered paragraphs.”
Conferences
Lead counsel must attend civil case management conferences in person.
“As such, the court requires lead counsel for the parties (as well as any pro se litigants) to attend the hearing in person.”
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 Covington decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed employment decision, she entered summary judgment where documented misconduct supported the employer’s stated reason and the plaintiff lacked a valid comparator or evidence of pretext.
“An employer who fires an employee under the mistaken but honest impression that the employee violated a work rule is not liable for discriminatory conduct.”
In Douglas, investigative choices about citizenship verification fell within the federal discretionary-function exception, while the separately recognized malicious-prosecution claim remained outside that exception.
“Operating with limited resources, ICE must weigh various policy considerations in deciding which suspected aliens to detain, how to detain them, and how to investigate claims of citizenship by detained aliens.”
In the Davis bankruptcy appeal, she distinguished disallowance of a claim against the estate from discharge of the underlying domestic-support debt and reversed the injunction against state enforcement.
“Rather, this Court holds that the State should not have been enjoined from presenting the issue of Mr. Davis’s possible child-support obligations in the State court, even after the Bankruptcy Court entered its order confirming Mr. Davis’s Chapter 11 Plan.”
In Harrell's, she treated a contract's binding impasse determination as arbitration despite its mediation label, then applied the clause to all claims grounded in the parties' operational deadlock.
“if an agreement specifies in detail a dispute resolution procedure which it calls ‘mediation’ (or anything else) but which is, in substance, FAA ‘arbitration,’ substance controls over title.”
In Martin, she denied a request for a Franks hearing after finding probable cause remained even without the challenged affidavit statement.
“Because the affidavit established probable cause to search Target Location 2 even without the challenged statement, a Franks hearing is not warranted.”
Compliance with supervision and steady employment did not, on their own, justify early termination of a lifetime supervised-release term in Gangadhar. Covington considered continuing monitoring necessary and left open reconsideration after fifteen years of supervision.
“his behavior does not rise to the level”
In Bryant, Covington dismissed consumer reporting claims for lack of standing because the amended complaint did not allege disclosure of inaccurate information to a third party or concrete consequences from the alleged file errors. She allowed a further amendment.
“Ms. Bryant fails to establish Article III standing.”
In Grant, Covington denied dismissal of an age-discrimination claim despite the absence of a named younger replacement, crediting the pleaded remarks, reassignment of work, and termination at this stage.
“no allegation of a younger replacement is required at all.”
Procedural preferences
On Rule 12(b)(6), she confined review to the pleadings and declined to resolve fact-dependent coverage questions before development of the evidentiary record.
“Upon due consideration, the Court needs more information to determine whether coverage exists. However, such review should come at the summary judgment stage, not the motion to dismiss stage.”
In Suomen Colorize, she transferred a patent case where the foreign plaintiff had no Florida connection and the accused technology, witnesses, and records were centered in Colorado.
“Because Suomen is not from the Middle District of Florida and the operative facts did not occur in the Middle District of Florida, the Court affords minimal deference to Suomen’s choice of forum in the Middle District of Florida.”
In Bechtelheimer, she allowed timely joinder of a connected nondiverse defendant and remanded rather than require parallel personal-injury suits in state and federal court.
“Last, this Court finds that multiple lawsuits dispersed between the state and federal court are not the most efficient use of judicial resources.”
In NAV, she dismissed a complaint without prejudice because it grouped thirteen defendants together without specifying each defendant’s alleged acts, and allowed amendment.
“Without more detail about what each Defendant is alleged to have done that violated the law, the complaint commits the cardinal sin of shotgun pleadings”
In Wall, Covington deferred requested habeas discovery while she first reviewed the claims on the existing record. She denied access to physical evidence without prejudice, allowed a renewed request if more facts proved necessary, and set a thirty-day merits reply.
“Wall may renew his discovery request if, following”
In a removed negligence case, Covington ordered remand on her own initiative when the removing parties had not established the required amount in controversy. No party's motion was resolved.
“The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to state court”
In the Alvarez Mirabal criminal case, Covington excluded a proposed entrapment-by-estoppel defense when the defendant relied on assurances attributed to a private associate and another defendant rather than a federal official’s direct communication.
“she cannot rely on assertions made by Mr. Goudreau alone.”
In the Oasis civil-contempt case, Covington denied reconsideration after finding the respondent supplied no newly discovered evidence or manifest error under Rule 59(e).
“Because Mr. DaCorta does not present newly-discovered evidence regarding his violation of the Consolidated Order or demonstrate any manifest errors of law or fact, he has not established grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Porcelli's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 76) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and *1341 APPROVED in all respects and is made a part of this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary-Judgment (Doc. # 44) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 75) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff for Failure to Attend Court Ordered Mediation (Doc. # 58) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. # 66) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Target National Bank's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Verified Complaint (Doc. # 4) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Mid-Continent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is DENIED.”
“(1) Ideal Image Development Corporation’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. # 163) is DENIED.”
“Randy and Cindy Hetrick’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the first element of their Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim (Doc. # 165) is DENIED. ... (4) Randy and Cindy Hetrick’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Ideal Image’s affirmative defense B is GRANTED.”
“Defendant U.S. Bank, National Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts I, III, IV, V, VI, and VII Asserted by CFBP and as to Counts III, IV, and V of Defendant’s Counterclaim and Third-Party Claim (Doc. # 54) is DENIED.”
“Defendant OmniActive Health Technologies Private Limited’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 115) is DENIED.”
“(1) Defendant HCFs motion for summary-judgment (Doc. # 103) is GRANTED.”
“(2) Plaintiff ACC’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 105) is DENIED.”
“(3) Plaintiff ACC’s motion to strike, in whole or in part, the affidavit of Philip J. Spengler, II, Esq. filed in support of HCFs motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 117) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“(1)Breathe Easy Pulmonary Services, Ine.’s and Premier Cardio Pulmonary Medical, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 201) is DENIED.”
“(2) Lincare’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 199) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim (Doc. # 17) is GRANTED as to Counts I and IV and DENIED in all other respects.”
“Defendant STME, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Kimberly Lowe's First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 22) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART .”
“(1) Defendants RS Compounding LLC and Renier Gobea's Motion to Dismiss Relator's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 97) is GRANTED .”
“(2) Defendant Stephen Caddick's Motion to Dismiss Relator's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 93) is GRANTED .”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed 2019-2021 Tampa civil cases include False Claims Act matters, wage-and-hour and family-leave disputes, disability-access suits, consumer claims, contracts, and removed insurance-coverage cases.
- Many ended within months through settlement or voluntary dismissal, while False Claims Act matters often remained under seal before settlement or dismissal after the United States declined to intervene.
- As a result, relatively few reached a contested dispositive ruling.
- The description reflects the reviewed cases rather than a caseload-wide rate.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 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 Covington: 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 Covington with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Covington, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Covington's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace