Robin Stacie Rosenbaum

How Judge Rosenbaum rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Rosenbaum no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Position
district
Status
Elevated to a higher court
Served
2012–2014
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
2012-06-27
Education
Cornell University, B.A., 1988; University of Miami School of Law, J.D., 1991
Signed orders read
13

How Judge Rosenbaum decides

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

What persuades

On a dismissal motion, she declines to consider an outside agreement when the complaint does not reference it, the claims do not depend on it, and its applicability is disputed.

“the attached click-through agreement is not referenced in the Complaint, not central to Plaintiffs’ claims, and not undisputed. Accordingly, it cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings.”

She enforces an insurance exclusion according to the alleged causal connection between the vehicle and the injury, even when the vehicle was stationary.

“The only pertinent question is whether the van is alleged to have contributed in any manner to Colareta’s injuries. In this case, the answer is a resounding yes.”

She accepts a federal agency's reasonable construction of an ambiguous enforcement statute when the incorporated remedies and implementing regulations support that reading.

“DOJ offers a reasonable interpretation of Title II — that when voluntary compliance is not possible, the Attorney General has the authority to take action to secure an appropriate remedy, including by filing a lawsuit.”

Procedural preferences

At the conditional-certification stage, she separates the similarity inquiry from the ultimate merits of the workers' claims.

“If the Court must avoid endorsing the merits of the case, it must likewise refrain from denying a motion for class certification on the basis that it believes that the plaintiff class will not succeed on the merits”

Cautions

She views striking allegations before class discovery as a drastic remedy and requires the challenged matter to have no possible relation to the dispute and to cause prejudice.

“A motion to strike will therefore ‘usually be denied unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause prejudice to one of the parties.’”

Signed rulings

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

SIG, Inc. v. AT&T Digital Life, Inc.
· 2013-09-12
Motions to dismiss (AT&T defendants) Granted in part

“the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ dismissal motions.”

Motions to dismiss (Diamond defendants) Granted in part
A.R. ex rel. Root v. Dudek
· 2014-05-30
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant State of Florida) Denied

“The State of Florida’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 28] is DENIED.”

Joseph v. Nichell's Caribbean Cuisine, Inc.
· 2013-06-12
Motion for bill of costs (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Costs [D.E. 56] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”

Solnes v. Wallis & Wallis, P.A.
· 2014-04-16
Motions to strike (plaintiff Stig Solnes) Denied

“the Motion to Strike is denied”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”

Sparta Insurance v. Colareta
· 2014-01-06
Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied”

Summary judgment (plaintiff Sparta Insurance Company) Granted

“Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”

Rojas v. Garda CL Southeast, Inc.
· 2013-12-23
Motion for conditional certification (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“the Court now grants in part Plaintiffs Motion for Conditional Certification”

Motion for equitable tolling (plaintiffs) Denied

“denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Equitable Tolling.”

Blanco GmbH + Co. KG v. Vlanco Industries, LLC
· 2014-01-21
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 126] is DENIED”

Motion for order to show cause (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs Motion to Re-Open and for an Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 79], Plaintiffs Second Motion for an Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 95], and Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default Judgment [ECF No. 153] are GRANTED IN PART”

Motion for order to show cause (plaintiff) Granted in part
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part
Motion for order to show cause (defendant Vito Antonio Laera) Denied

“Defendant Laera’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause [ECF No. 125] is DENIED”

Default judgment (defendant Vito Antonio Laera) Denied

“Defendant Laera’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment [ECF No. 157] is DENIED.”

Beam v. Domani Motor Cars, Inc.
· 2013-02-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant Domani Motor Cars, Inc.) Granted in part

“Defendant Domani Motor Cars, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 9] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

Finn v. Kent Security Services, Inc.
· 2013-11-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss”

Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“denies Defendant’s Motion to Strike.”

Harris v. Department of Homeland Security
· 2014-05-08
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“the Court now grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”

United States v. Ramirez
· 2014-01-10
Motion to suppress statements (defendant Carlos Luna Ramirez) Granted

“the Court now grants Defendants’ Motions.”

Motion to suppress statements (defendant Carlos Luna Ramirez) Granted
Bouldry v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
· 2012-12-18
Motions to remand (plaintiffs) Denied

“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [D.E. 13] is hereby DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The fixed sample contains ten terminated matters filed near the beginning and end of Rosenbaum's district tenure. Subjects included consumer credit, labor standards, contracts, prisoner and other civil rights, personal injury, bankruptcy appeals, and miscellaneous proceedings. Filing-to-termination durations ranged from 3 to 420 days; the sample is descriptive, not representative.

A historical record

Judge Rosenbaum no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.