Beverly Baldwin Martin
How Judge Martin rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Martin no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Martin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Treats an admitted, deliberate collection practice as powerful evidence against a statutory bona-fide-error defense.
“Niagara deliberately choose this policy, and must face the consequences of its decision.”
At the pleading stage of a forfeiture action, looks for detailed facts supporting a reasonable belief that the property is traceable to the alleged violation.
“The court finds that the Government has ‘allege[d] sufficient facts to provide a reasonable belief that the property is subject to forfeiture’ — in other words, that the Defendant Property is traceable to a violation of § 5324.”
Procedural preferences
When no party objects to a magistrate judge's recommendation, reviews it for clear error before adopting it.
“Where no objections to the R & R have been stated, the court reviews the R & R for clear error.”
Expects counsel to make genuine efforts to resolve discovery disputes before filing another motion to compel.
“The Rules require the parties to make good faith efforts to resolve discovery disputes amongst themselves before filing any additional motions to compel, and the parties are directed to do so going forward.”
Cautions
Warns against unnecessary technical objections, particularly when a party has not itself followed filing rules.
“Defendants persist in making petty objections on matters such as the authentication of an obviously admissible document, while simultaneously flouting the Local Rules in a manner that could actually prejudice its adversary.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Mr. Knowlin’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Doc. No. 8].”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 16] is GRANTED. Statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.00 are hereby awarded to Ms. Edwards.”
“Defendants Dennis McCord’s and Willie Reynolds, Jr.’s Motions to Suppress Evidence [Doc. Nos. 16, 31, 32, 42, and 44] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth herein.”
“Mr. Reynolds’s Motion to Suppress Statements [Doc. No. 30] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, also as set forth herein.”
“The Defendants’ converted Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 24] is GRANTED; Dunbar’s converted Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 5] is GRANTED; Mr. Johnson’s converted Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 12] is GRANTED; and Mr. Kocopi’s converted Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 14] is likewise GRANTED.”
“The court also GRANTS the Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 37]”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 40] is DENIED, and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 37] is GRANTED.”
“Lamar’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Charles F. Floyd [Doc. No. 44] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Notice of Objection and Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative, Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Michael L. Reese and Memorandum of Law In Support Thereof [Doc. No. 56] is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Certified Copy of Marietta Zoning Ordinance [Doc. No. 68] is GRANTED.”
“The Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Their Statement of Material Facts, or, In the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Reply In Further Support of Plaintiffs Statement of Material Facts is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”
“The Motions for Leave to File Excess Pages [Doc. Nos. 39, 57, 62] are DENIED AS MOOT per the February 6, 2008 hearing.”
“Plaintiff MeKenney’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 35] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff McKenney’s Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default [Doc. No. 37] is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Wachovia’s Motion to Dismiss [Doe. No. 4] is GRANTED as to the unconscionability claim and the unjust enrichment claim only and is DENIED as to all other claims.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Brown’s Motion for Hearing [Doc. No. 23] is DENIED.”
“First Horizon’s two Requests for Judicial Notice [Doc. Nos. 9, 26] are DENIED.”
“Because Mr. Brown's Amended Complaint supersedes his original Complaint, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint [Doc. No. 10] is moot, and is DENIED as such.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 24] is GRANTED as to Counts III and IV. Counts I and II are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, insofar as they rely on the predicate act of residential mortgage fraud, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-8-102.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Brown’s Motion for Class Certification [Doc. No. 68] is GRANTED.”
“Furthermore, the Defendants’ Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 67] is likewise GRANTED”
“Mr. Brown’s Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 75] is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART.”
“The Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply [Doc. No. 104] is GRANTED for the limited purposes stated here.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The fixed sample contains ten terminated matters filed near the beginning and end of Martin's district tenure. Subjects included employment civil rights, prisoner civil rights, labor relations, student-loan recovery, disability benefits, foreclosure, personal injury, and trademark law. Case durations ranged from 13 to 1,243 days; the sample is descriptive, not representative.
A historical record
Judge Martin 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.