Kenneth Anthony Marra
How Judge Marra rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Marra no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Marra
Kenneth A. Marra served as a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Appointed by President George W. Bush, he received his commission on September 13, 2002, assumed senior status on August 1, 2017, and later retired.
How Judge Marra decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mason, the court denied dismissal of a Title VII race-discrimination complaint because a prima facie evidentiary showing belongs at summary judgment or trial, not the pleading stage.
“While these two elements are required in order to establish a prima facie case by circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, these factors go to the merits of the case and are considered at the motion for summary judgment stage or at trial.”
In Surgical Outcome Support, the court construed a mislabeled forum-non-conveniens request as a Section 1404 transfer motion because the proposed alternative was another federal district, then weighed the contractual Florida forum against transfer.
“Thus, the Court will construe Defendants’ motion only as a motion to transfer venue pursuant to § 1404 to the Western District of Pennsylvania and not as a motion to dismiss.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court finds that the granting of injunctive relief is not warranted in this case.”
“Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Motion to Strike Response to Rule 25 Notice (DE 477) is denied.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 150) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 154) is GRANTED.”
“the remaining motions be denied as moot ... Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Michael Wylie (DE 155)”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Defendants' Expert Michael Dennis (DE 161) ... denied as moot”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (DE 10) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend consistent with this Order.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 8) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (DE 14) is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint (DE 10) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff is given leave to amend once.”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike (DE 19), which is unopposed (DE 22), is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, construed as a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Steven G. Smith's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant Smith.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [DE 2] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss the action is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to stay the action pending resolution of the parallel case is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for More Definite Statement is GRANTED. Plaintiff is instructed to file an Amended Complaint on all counts, consistent with the Court's rulings at the hearing.”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike is TERMINATED, as it was orally withdrawn by defense counsel at the hearing.”
A sua sponte screening dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B): the court found the pro se plaintiff's malicious-prosecution claim against the state attorney barred by prosecutorial immunity and defensive collateral estoppel and dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order rules on no party motion; pending motions were denied as moot and the case closed.
“it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (DE 10) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Offer of Judgment and For Sanctions [DE 9] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to strike Defendants' Offer of Judgment [DE 8] from the court file. The Court reserves ruling on the request for sanctions.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 41.5 days (N = 4).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 157 days (N = 1).
The reviewed 2018-2020 matters show a late-career docket weighted toward criminal cases and quickly resolved disability-access suits. His major civil matters, including the Epstein crime-victims litigation and the Sharfi water-jurisdiction case, lasted much longer. 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 6 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Marra no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.