Anuraag Hari Singhal

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Appointed by Donald J. Trump (Republican) 24 signed orders read

How Judge Singhal decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Procedural preferences

A standard protective order may be adopted over objections when it facilitates production of sensitive material; unrelated complaints about whether discovery has been produced belong in separate disputes.

“The proposed protective order will actually expedite discovery, providing the parties necessary assurance before they turn over sensitive and private documents.”

A prior state-court resolution can foreclose a later federal suit when the identical issue was actually litigated, necessary to judgment, and fully contested; a pending appeal does not suspend that preclusive effect.

“Because Plaintiffs’ one claim is collaterally estopped, the Court grants summary judgment.”

Cautions

A litigant's financial condition may affect collection but does not defeat legal entitlement to a fee award when the underlying federal litigation was unreasonable.

“Although unfortunate, inability to pay is not an argument for why Defendants are not legally entitled to their fees. This argument goes to collection, not to the award of fees.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Roldan v. City of Hallandale Beach
0:22-cv-60279 · 2023-07-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [57]) and Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [60]) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in this Order.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [57]) is DENIED as to Officer Termaat in Count I and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE [60]) is GRANTED as to Officer Termaat in Count I.”

Fox v. Gaines
9:19-cv-81620 · 2022-05-31
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [93]) is DENIED.”

Waters v. City of Coconut Creek
0:23-cv-61681 · 2024-08-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (DE [70]) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ... Counts 1 through 5 are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. ... The remainder of the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”

White v. GM Law Firm, LLC
9:21-cv-80896 · 2024-06-24
Motion for sanctions (defendant) Denied

“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report & Recommendation (DE [278]) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED IN WHOLE. Defendant's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (DE [226]) is DENIED.”

Etienne v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
0:24-cv-61951 · 2025-01-03
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Remand (DE [9]) is DENIED.”

CreeLED, Inc. v. The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
0:24-cv-60062 · 2024-02-28
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (DE [8]) is GRANTED, under the terms set forth below:”

Conley v. Vacanti
0:23-cv-60384 · 2025-01-29
Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Report and Recommendation (DE [167]) of the Magistrate Judge is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendant Daniel S. Vacanti's Counterclaim (DE [129]) is DENIED.”

Conley v. Vacanti
0:23-cv-60384 · 2025-06-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“The D. Vacanti Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [107]) and A. Vacanti Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [113]) are both GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motions are GRANTED as to Count I (Copyright Infringement), but are otherwise denied.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE [110]) is DENIED, except as to Affirmative Defenses 9, 16, 18, 26, 27, and 28, which Defendants forfeited.”

White v. GM Law Firm, LLC
9:21-cv-80896 · 2024-01-23
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count II (Rescission) (DE [215]) is GRANTED. Count II of the Amended Complaint (DE [170) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Shores Global, LLC v. Njord's Ark A/S
1:21-cv-20623 · 2023-03-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (DE [59]) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Shores Global, LLC v. Krenzen
1:21-cv-20623 · 2024-08-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (DE [177]) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This case will proceed to trial on Count I: Breach of Contract as limited by this Order.”

Eutsey v. Polk
0:25-cv-60446 · 2025-12-31
Motion for voluntary dismissal (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs' Dismissal Motion (DE [40]) is DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 820 days (N = 3).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 76 days (N = 1).

The reviewed 2020-2022 matters include civil-rights, fair-housing, disability-access, consumer-credit, and contract cases, alongside a substantial criminal caseload. Judge Singhal authors his dispositive rulings and often refers discovery and sanctions matters to a magistrate judge. This provides descriptive context rather than a caseload-wide rate.

Put Judge Singhal's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Singhal actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Singhal's own signed orders and cites them.