Bruce E. Reinhart
How Judge Reinhart rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Reinhart
Bruce E. Reinhart has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida since 2018. He earned a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Before joining the bench, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney and practiced criminal defense law.
Judge Reinhart's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Reinhart, 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
Discovery
Do not file a discovery motion until the judge’s hearing process has been used.
“No discovery motions shall be filed until after the parties have engaged in this process.”
Discovery
An objection on relevance or proportionality must explain the specific basis.
“An objection based on relevance or proportionality must include a specific explanation describing why the request lacks relevance and/or why the requested discovery is disproportionate in light of the factors listed in Rule 26(b)(1).”
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 Reinhart decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Tonnessen v. O'Malley, Reinhart found that the claimant knowingly waived counsel and that substantial evidence supported the benefits denial. He recommended denying her summary-judgment motion and granting the Commissioner's; the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“Court DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17), and GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19).”
Procedural preferences
In Strange v. Aircraft Demolition, Reinhart recommended dismissing an FLSA suit for lack of Article III standing because the plaintiffs had received overtime and liquidated damages before filing. The district judge adopted the recommendation and dismissed without prejudice.
“The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint ... This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to CLOSE this case.”
In Cook v. Jones, Reinhart recommended dismissing a prisoner's civil-rights action without prejudice for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff did not answer summary-judgment motions despite a court order. He recommended denying those motions as moot rather than reaching their merits.
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 107-108] be DENIED AS MOOT”
In Doherty v. Borrow, Reinhart recommended dismissal with prejudice after finding a clear record of delay and disobedience of court orders. The district judge adopted the recommendation, dismissing the case for Doherty's willful and repeated noncompliance.
“This case is DISMISSED with prejudice because of Doherty’s willful, flagrant, and repeated failure to comply with court orders.”
In Doherty v. Borrows, Reinhart recommended awarding only part of the defendants' requested costs after a dismissal with prejudice. He explained that the court had to review even an unopposed costs request, and found several expedited or ancillary transcript charges unsupported or merely convenient.
“Even if the costs motion is unopposed, the Court has an independent obligation to ensure the costs awarded are proper.”
Cautions
In Corsi v. Newsmax Media, Reinhart recommended awarding $48,750.50 in attorney fees and $400 in costs, below the defendants' requested fees. He reduced the fee request after reviewing redacted invoices, duplicative billing, staffing, and administrative work.
“I recommend that Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (ECF No. 34) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... Attorneys' Fees: $48,750.50 Costs: $400 TOTAL: $49,150.50”
For a large fee application with recurring block billing, vague entries, excessive staffing, and work attributable only to state-law claims, Reinhart used a 20 percent across-the-board reduction after making targeted rate and paralegal-hour cuts.
“considering the instances of block billing, excessive time spent on certain tasks, vague time entries, and some time spent solely on state law claims, I conclude that a 20 percent across-the-board reduction is appropriate.”
In Johnson v. Borell, Reinhart recommended dismissal without prejudice after finding the amended complaint did not establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
“GRANTED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint ... This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to CLOSE this case.”
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 107-108] be DENIED AS MOOT”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 100] is GRANTED. ... The Court awards Plaintiff $2,088,213.00 on Count I of the Complaint.”
“Defendant's Motion for Final Summary Judgment [ECF No. 102] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Robert Przespolewski [ECF No. 119] is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 17) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 19) is GRANTED.”
“Judge Reinhart issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion be denied and the matter set for trial. ... Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 461] is DENIED.”
“I recommend that Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (ECF No. 34) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... Attorneys' Fees: $48,750.50 Costs: $400 TOTAL: $49,150.50”
“Defendants’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART in that (1) Defendants be awarded $570,826.80 in attorneys’ fees, and (2) Defendants do not recover costs.”
Reinhart recommended sua sponte dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) after the pro se plaintiff repeatedly failed to appear, disregarded orders to explain his absence, communicated with chambers ex parte despite warnings, and failed to keep his address current. The district judge adopted the recommendation, finding a clear record of willful delay and that lesser sanctions would not suffice. This non-motion dismissal is excluded from motion statistics.
“this Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT in part and DENY in part the Motion.”
“this Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court GRANT in part and DENY in part the Motion.”
Reinhart recommended dismissal without prejudice after a self-represented plaintiff failed to serve the defendants or respond to a show-cause order. The recommendation resolved no party motion and is excluded from outcome statistics.
“GRANT in part and DENY in part the Motion to Dismiss.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled civil dockets include both consent cases he resolved as judge of record and referred cases he handled by recommendation. His broader workload also includes a heavy criminal-duty and search-warrant docket that does not generate civil motion outcomes.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, not for Judge Reinhart: 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 Reinhart with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Reinhart, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Reinhart's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace