Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein
How Judge Elfenbein rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Elfenbein
Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein became a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Florida in March 2024. She previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Miami and clerked for U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom. She earned her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Florida.
Judge Elfenbein's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Elfenbein, 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
Before requesting a discovery hearing, confer personally by phone, video, or in person.
“Before requesting a discovery hearing, the parties must first confer in a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute in compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3). Under this Local Rule, counsel must certify that they made good-faith efforts to confer. An adequate certificate of conference requires at least one personal communication (in person, by videoconference, or by telephone), if not more, between counsel.”
Discovery
Do not file a written discovery motion unless Judge Elfenbein authorizes it.
“Except as authorized by the Court, the parties shall not raise any discovery disputes by filing written discovery motions.”
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 Elfenbein decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Zamora v. AAP Implants, Inc., she recommended partial dismissal with different prejudice rulings for different claims; the district judge adopted that recommendation.
“Judge Elfenbein issued a R&R recommending that Defendant's Motion be granted in part and denied in part. ... Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [47], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Counts I and VI ... are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Count VII ... is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... DENIED to the extent Defendant seeks to dismiss Count III”
On default judgment, sworn facts and reliable arithmetic can establish damages without an evidentiary hearing. She independently checked the calculations and recommended the higher available statutory recovery while avoiding a double award.
“Plaintiff asserts that the record contains sufficient information to determine the damages award without an evidentiary hearing and provides reliable figures that are subject to a precise mathematical computation — a computation that the Court has itself verified by crunching the numbers. ... Plaintiff BE AWARDED $141,990.00 in damages”
A trademark-dilution claim needs evidence of widespread recognition among the general consuming public. Long use, registrations, and popularity within a music niche did not create a triable issue on fame.
“Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Korta Records, there is insufficient proof to suggest that its Marks have achieved the level of widespread public recognition necessary for a dilution claim. ... summary judgment in Plaintiffs' favor is warranted.”
Cautions
In Morales v. United States Federal Government, she recommended dismissing claims under statutes with no private right of action with prejudice and the remaining claims without prejudice; the district judge adopted her recommendation.
“Magistrate Judge Elfenbein recommends that the Court: (1) dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff's claims filed pursuant to: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 242; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 249; (3) 18 U.S.C § 1001; (4) 18 U.S.C § 1832; and (5) 28 U.S.C § 351; (2) dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice as the Complaint is frivolous and a shotgun pleading; and (3) grant Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. ... the R&R (ECF No. 8) is ADOPTED.”
A fee request following partial discovery success may fail when the opposing party's objections were substantially justified and neither side clearly prevailed. She treated that mixed result as a reason not to shift expenses.
“IC System's objections within Request for Production Nos. 8 and 9 were, in part, substantially justified ... neither party was a clear victor at the Hearing. ... the circumstances here in which Plaintiff only partially prevailed would make an award of expenses unjust. ... Accordingly, the Motion, ECF No. [51], is DENIED.”
For substantial fee applications, detailed market-rate evidence can support requested hourly rates, but block billing across unrelated tasks risks an across-the-board reduction even after a strong merits result.
“Because the billing records here in many instances do not allow the Court to identify the amount of time expended on particular tasks to determine their reasonableness, the Court will apply an across-the board cut. ... the Court finds that a 10% across-the-board reduction is appropriate”
In a product-liability case, she denied dismissal for alleged fraud on the court where witness accounts conflicted but impeachment at trial remained available and the movant had not shown the clear misconduct needed for the extraordinary sanction.
“The adversarial process remains capable of addressing that discrepancy.”
In Peyton v. Grant, she granted summary judgment on the remaining claims after finding that the plaintiff had not developed the theory pleaded in his complaint and could not rely on a newly asserted theory in response.
“Plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment by pivoting to a new, unpled benefit theory.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Elfenbein issued her Report which recommended that Plaintiff's IFP Motion be granted, and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. ... The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 9], is ADOPTED in full; ... This action is DISMISSED without prejudice”
“the R&R (ECF No. 8) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s pro se Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED in part WITH PREJUDICE and in part WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Judge Elfenbein issued a R&R recommending that Defendant's Motion be granted in part and denied in part. ... Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [47], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Counts I and VI ... are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Count VII ... is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... DENIED to the extent Defendant seeks to dismiss Count III”
“Judge Elfenbein issued a report and recommendation ('R&R'), ECF No. [14], recommending that the Motion be granted. ... the Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis ... must be granted. However, because the Complaint fails to state a claim ... the Complaint must be dismissed. ... The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [14], is ADOPTED. ... This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“IC System's objections within Request for Production Nos. 8 and 9 were, in part, substantially justified ... neither party was a clear victor at the Hearing. ... the circumstances here in which Plaintiff only partially prevailed would make an award of expenses unjust. ... Accordingly, the Motion, ECF No. [51], is DENIED.”
“Defendant Diaz has shown good cause to vacate the Clerk's entry of default. ... I respectfully RECOMMEND that: 1. Defendant Diaz's Unopposed Motion to Vacate Default, ECF No. [39], be GRANTED; 2. The Clerk's Entry of Default against Defendant Diaz, ECF No. [32], be VACATED”
“Because default judgment cannot be entered without a valid entry of default, Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment should be denied as moot. ... Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Diaz, ECF No. [35], be DENIED AS MOOT”
“I respectfully RECOMMEND that Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. [28], be GRANTED ... A Final Default Judgment BE ENTERED as to Counts IV and V in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants; ... Plaintiff BE AWARDED $141,990.00 in damages”
“I respectfully RECOMMEND that Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants ... Motion for Summary Judgment ... be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. As to Counts I and II, I recommend that summary judgment be DENIED; and 2. As to Count III, I recommend that summary judgment be GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Defendants' Expert Leslie Zigel on all Non-Damages Topics, ECF No. [82], is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Improper and Untimely Expert Report by Plaintiffs' Handwriting Expert, ECF No. [86], is GRANTED”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Improper and Untimely Expert Report on Venezuelan Law, ECF No. [119], is DENIED”
“Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. [88], is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees, ECF No. [310], is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court AWARDS Plaintiffs $763,320.10 in attorney's fees.”
“the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [13], be GRANTED”
“Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [28], be DENIED”
“Nepo’s Request for Attorney’s Fees, Costs, or Related Expenses, ECF No. [56], be DENIED”
“State Farm’s Motion to Bifurcate, ECF No. [57], be DENIED AS MOOT.”
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 |
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 Elfenbein: 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 Elfenbein with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Elfenbein, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Elfenbein's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace