Beth Francine Bloom
How Judge Bloom rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bloom
Beth Francine Bloom is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Bloom received a commission on June 25, 2014.
Judge Bloom's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bloom, 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
Conferences
Include a detailed plan for preserving, disclosing, and accessing each category of electronically stored information.
“The parties shall establish a detailed schedule for the preservation, disclosure and access of each different type or category of 1 electronically stored information.”
Conferences
Jointly file the magistrate-jurisdiction election form with the scheduling report; unilateral submissions are rejected.
“As part of the joint scheduling report, the parties shall jointly complete and file with the Court the Election to Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge for Final Disposition of Motions appended to this Order as Attachment A. The Court will not accept unilateral submissions.”
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 Bloom decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Schwarzbaum, Bloom denied the defendant's summary-judgment motion because the disputed state-of-mind issue required a factfinder.
“a party's state of mind is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact at trial. As such, summary judgment is inappropriate.”
In Patt v. Volkswagen Group of America, she denied a motion to dismiss a manufacturing-defect claim. She held that the plaintiff's allegations gave fair notice even without identifying the technical cause of the alleged defect.
“Patt's manufacturing defect claim therefore survives Audi's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.”
In Pishevar v. Hotels.com, she dismissed four legally insufficient counts with prejudice but dismissed a third-party-beneficiary contract count without prejudice because the plaintiff might allege a contract for his benefit.
“Because Counts I, II, IV, and V are legally insufficient, those Counts are dismissed with prejudice. Nevertheless, to the extent that Plaintiff can sufficiently allege the existence of a contract for his benefit... Count III is dismissed without prejudice.”
In Vieira v. MSC Cruises, she found the plaintiff's evidence of other incidents too general to show that the passenger assault at issue was foreseeable, and she entered summary judgment for the cruise line.
“the Court finds that Plaintiff’s reliance on those incidents is at too high a level of generality and ignores too many variables.”
In a removed zoning dispute, the court remanded because the operative complaint raised state and local issues without a federal question.
“Complaint does not present any federal question.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, Defendant's Motion, ECF No. [33], is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [5], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count II in Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.”
“Patt's manufacturing defect claim therefore survives Audi's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.”
“Airway Air and Gutierrez's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint, ECF No. [38], is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion, ECF No. [5], is GRANTED. Counts I, II, IV, and V are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Count III is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Tesla's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [326], is GRANTED in part and DENIED: a. GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' Defective Manufacture Claim (Count III) and Negligent Misrepresentation Claim (Count IV). b. DENIED as to Plaintiffs Strict Products Liability--Defective Design Claim (Count I) and Failure to Warn Claim (Count II).”
“Tesla's Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs' Experts Moore, Cummings, and Pettingill, ECF No. [318], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... Dr. Bernard F. Pettingill's expert opinion and testimony is EXCLUDED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Expert Testing and Testimony of Tesla Expert Ryan Harrington, ECF No. [322], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, ECF No. [33], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Counts III and IV of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint ... are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant shall answer Counts I, II, V-IX of the Amended Complaint ...”
“Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [44], is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [47], is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [41], is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [44], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff's claim under Count III shall proceed against Defendant.”
“Defendant's Motion, ECF No. [65], is DENIED. Count III of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint shall proceed to trial against Defendant.”
“Defendant Petsmart, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint or Alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement, ECF No. [6], is GRANTED. The above-styled case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint by October 26, 2023.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [8], is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint, ECF No. [6], is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, ECF No. [15], is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. [31], is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 61 days (N = 16).
- The reviewed 2021 civil matters include commercial and contract disputes, insurance cases, disability-access suits, habeas and prisoner matters, and trademark cases.
- A complete 2017 civil-rights docket adds multiple substantive motions from one case.
- Many sampled matters ended quickly through default judgment, remand after removal, or settlement.
- 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 | 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 Southern District of Florida, not for Judge Bloom: 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 Bloom with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bloom, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bloom's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace