Aileen Mercedes Cannon
How Judge Cannon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment she requires competent record evidence, not the movant's own testimony or speculation; a scintilla is not enough.
“Speculation does not create a genuine issue of fact; instead, it creates a false issue, the demolition of which is a primary goal of summary judgment.”
Procedural preferences
Each summary-judgment record is judged on its own facts; she will not import an outcome from a related case decided on a different record.
“that O'Leary's wrongdoing harmed multiple litigants in different proceedings does not obviate the Court's obligation to assess the particular factual record presented in each case under the applicable legal standards”
Conducts de novo review of objected-to portions of an R&R but accepts unobjected portions absent clear error; legal conclusions reviewed de novo regardless.
“Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct.”
Cautions
Arguments raised for the first time in objections to an R&R (e.g., res ipsa loquitur) are disfavored and unlikely to rescue a record that lacks evidence of breach.
“Without foreclosing the application of res ipsa loquitur in the airline context writ large, what is clear is that the event as pled in this case is not a quintessential res ipsa event”
Monell failure-to-train/supervise liability faces a 'difficult-to-satisfy' notice standard and a backward-looking inquiry; post-arrest conduct cannot create the required pre-existing notice.
“an inquiry into Monell liability for failure to train/supervise necessarily is backward looking, targeted at determining whether the municipality had information prior to the unconstitutional conduct”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 5 |
Granted: 3Denied: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 2 |
Moot / procedural: 2 | counts only |
| Motion to consolidate N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion in limine N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Daubert motion N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to exclude expert N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Snyder's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 49] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases [ECF No. 65] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff's Amended Motion in limine is DENIED AS MOOT [ECF No. 62].”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED. ... Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1-1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 46] is GRANTED. This ruling is dispositive of all of Plaintiffs' claims in this action.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 49] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion [ECF No. 48] ... are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant's Motions to Strike Plaintiffs' Expert Reports [ECF Nos. 42-43] ... are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant's Motions to Strike Plaintiffs' Expert Reports [ECF Nos. 42-43] ... are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Expert Testimony of Dr. Thomas Jenkyn [ECF No. 44] are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 13] is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report.”
“The Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 16] is DENIED.”
“The Court finds the R&R to be well reasoned and correct ... 2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint [ECF No. 16] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.”
“the Motion must be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth therein ... 2. The Motion [ECF No. 43] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in the Report on or before October 8, 2021.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 245 days (N = 12).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 96 days (N = 3).
A current assigned_judge enumeration is flooded by the 2026 S.D. Fla. alien-detainee 463 habeas surge (Krome / ICE petitions, all pending). The 2021-2023 filing window is criminal-dominant with sparse short-lived civil dockets (admin/sealed). Caseload is descriptive, not a base rate.