Jose E. Martinez
How Judge Martinez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Treats insurance-policy interpretation as a question of law well-suited to summary judgment and construes exclusions per Florida appellate precedent; reaches only the dispositive ground (declined to address an alternative policy exclusion once the workers'-comp exclusion resolved the case).
“the Court concludes that Maxum has no obligation to defend or indemnify Massaro in the underlying tort action under operation of the Policy's Workers' Compensation Exclusion as a matter of law. Because this determination resolves the dispute, the Court need not address whether the Employer's Liability Exclusion also applies.”
Procedural preferences
Will not resolve affirmative defenses or contract-interpretation ambiguities on a 12(b)(6) motion; a fee described as 'to cover costs' but exceeding costs states a plausible pass-through/FDUTPA theory.
“the voluntary payment doctrine is an affirmative defense that may not be raised on a motion to dismiss, as it entails a fact-based inquiry not suited for resolution on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”
Cautions
On employment SJ, applies McDonnell Douglas strictly: 'unsupported speculation' does not create a fact issue, and a plaintiff must show EVERY articulated non-discriminatory/non-retaliatory reason is pretextual to survive.
“Plaintiffs must show that every articulated reason is a pretext in order to prevail. ... Plaintiffs failure to produce evidence that Defendant Kleppin's safety concerns were a pretext mandates granting summary judgment.”
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: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Denied: 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's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] is GRANTED. ... Accordingly, Chase is entitled to summary judgment in its favor with respect to all claims.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint is DENIED [ECF No. 21].”
“Plaintiff Maxum Indemnity Company's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 45] is GRANTED.”
“The Defendant Estate's cross-motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 46] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (D.E. No. 95, 96) are GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability] (D.E. No. 196) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Recent (2020-2022) direct docket is heavily CRIMINAL (US v. <defendant> -- drug/fraud/immigration prosecutions, several Key West 4:21-cr division), consistent with the BLOCKED-note finding. Historic civil docket (the reasoning-layer opinions) spans insurance/declaratory (Maxum), employment Title VII (Beach), FLSA-retaliation (Suchite), and consumer/FDUTPA class actions (Maor); BLOCKED-note 2021 enumeration also surfaced FDCPA/consumer-credit, marine PI (Carnival), copyright, and §1983. NOT a grant rate -- caseload composition only.