Aileen Mercedes Cannon
How Judge Cannon rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cannon
Aileen Mercedes Cannon is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Cannon received a commission on November 13, 2020.
Judge Cannon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Cannon, 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
Trial
Use the premarked exhibit identification label in the exhibit-number column of Judge Cannon’s exhibit list.
“The number in the ‘Exhibit Number’ column must indicate the pre-marked identification label (e.g., P1 or D1).”
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 8, 2026).
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
In Tatum v. Snyder and O'Leary, she assessed the facts in that summary-judgment record separately from a related case involving the same former deputy.
“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 a recommendation but accepts unobjected portions when the face of the record shows no clear error.
“To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record.”
Pleading deficiencies did not justify dismissal where they were legally permitted, raised trial-stage evidentiary issues, or could be addressed through jury instructions and verdict forms.
“the identified deficiencies, even if generating some arguable confusion, are either permitted by law, raise evidentiary challenges not appropriate for disposition at this juncture, and/or do not require dismissal even if technically deficient, so long as the jury is instructed appropriately and presented with adequate verdict forms”
In Swanfeld v. Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, she dismissed a shotgun complaint without prejudice and instructed the plaintiff to identify each count's legal basis, supporting facts, and responsible defendant in an amended pleading.
“each count must identify the particular legal basis for liability, separate each claim into a separate count, and incorporate and/or allege the specific factual allegations that support each cause of action within each count.”
In Makozy, a defendant missed the deadline to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation and tried to raise the point in a response to the opposing party. The court rejected that untimely objection. File specific objections within the set deadline.
“The Court rejects Defendant’s attempt to smuggle an untimely objection into its response.”
Cautions
In Sheldon v. United Airlines, Inc., she rejected a res ipsa loquitur theory first raised in objections to a recommendation and granted summary judgment after finding no competent 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”
The Appointments Clause dismissal rested on a close statutory reading that found no cited provision gave the Attorney General authority to appoint a special counsel exercising the powers at issue.
“None of the statutes cited as legal authority for the appointment—28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, 533—gives the Attorney General broad inferior-officer appointing power or bestows upon him the right to appoint a federal officer with the kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith.”
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 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.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 29] is GRANTED to the extent recommended in the Report.”
“The Motion [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons stated in the Report.”
“The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED [ECF No. 352].”
“Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED IN PART, GRANTED IN PART as to the improperly contained uncharged offense allegations [ECF No. 85 ¶ 36], and RESERVED IN PART as to potentially privileged information contained in the Superseding Indictment.”
“The Motion is therefore DENIED [ECF No. 485].”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment Based on Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith is GRANTED in accordance with this Order [ECF No. 326].”
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: 34.5 days (N = 42).
The current reviewed matters include many pending 2026 alien-detainee habeas petitions arising from immigration detention in South Florida. The reviewed 2021-2023 matters are predominantly criminal, with a smaller group of short-lived civil cases that were administrative or sealed. This provides descriptive context 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 | 7 |
| 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 | 7 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 13 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 40 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 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 Southern District of Florida, not for Judge Cannon: 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 | 8,196 | 3.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 848 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,287 | 3.5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 16 | 10.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 45 | 17.1 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 8,196 | 3.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,755 | 3.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 20,408 | 0 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,287 | 3.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 8,536 | 3.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,657 | 3.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 9,471 | 3.7 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 Cannon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cannon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cannon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace