Berry Avant Edenfield

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia district Retired 2015 · served 1978–2015 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 17 signed orders read

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

How Judge Edenfield decides

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

What persuades

Edenfield read jurisdictional statutes narrowly and rejected removal theories that confused supplemental authority with original federal jurisdiction.

“supplemental jurisdiction ‘is not a source of original subject-matter jurisdiction’; therefore, § 1367 cannot constitute the sole basis for removal.”

He treated undisputed conduct, rather than labels attached to an event, as controlling when applying an insurance exclusion.

“No reasonable jury could find Robert Pittman was not engaged in a felony at the time he died.”

Procedural preferences

He allowed successive reply briefs before decision and treated the local notice rule as a scheduling aid for the court, not a weapon for an opponent.

“This Rule exists for the benefit of the Court and not the opposing party.”

He favored curative amendment where delay, bad faith, and prejudice were absent, while preserving service and notice requirements.

“Allowing her to cure that insufficiency by amendment seems, both logical and fair.”

Cautions

He expected represented parties to plead requested remedies expressly and would not supply nominal damages through liberal construction reserved for self-represented litigants.

“the Plaintiff here is represented by counsel. As such, it would be inappropriate For the Court to liberally construe Plaintiffs prayer for relief as praying nominal damages.”

He struck affirmative defenses that were too vague to give the opposing side fair notice or that used pleadings for improper threats.

“Procedurally improper pleadings to this Court are not among them.”

Signed rulings

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

Miller v. Crown Amusements, Inc.
· 1993-04-06
Motion in limine (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the call is ADMISSIBLE, under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) as a present sense impression.”

Pittman v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
· 1995-09-07
Summary judgment (defendant insurer) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”

Motion for continuance (defendant insurer) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s motion for a continuance or special setting is DENIED as moot.”

Colonial Oil Industries, Inc. v. Underwriters Subscribing to Policy Nos. T031504670 & T031504671
· 1995-12-06
Motion to alter or amend (defendant underwriters) Granted in part

“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Underwriters’ Motion To Alter Or Amend The Judgment Pursuant To FRCP 59(e) to the extent it seeks reduction of the judgment against it.”

United States v. Wells
· 1996-03-25
Motion to enforce summons (United States) Granted

“Accordingly, the IRS’ motion to enforce its summons is GRANTED.”

A/S Dan-Bunkering Ltd. v. M/V ZAMET
· 1996-08-23
Summary judgment (plaintiff fuel supplier) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, DB’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and it is granted a lien against the M/V ZAMET in the amount of 29,723.74”

Summary judgment (claimant vessel owner) Denied

“Losinjska’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”

Brown v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
· 1997-02-24
Motions to stay (defendant insurer) Denied

“Defendant The Prudential Insurance Company of America’s (‘Prudential’s’) motion to stay (doc. # 19) is DENIED”

Motion for oral argument (defendant insurer) Denied

“as is its request for oral argument (doc. # 20).”

Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff Hugh F. Brown’s motion to remand (doc. # 13) will be granted”

Motion for interlocutory appeal (defendant insurer) Denied

“Prudential’s request for § 1292(b) certification (doc. #21) will also be denied.”

Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“Brown is entitled to recover costs and attorney’s fees associated with Prudential’s improvident removal”

Ford Plantation, LLC v. Black
· 2000-09-21
Motion to join party (defendants) Granted in part

“the motion of defendants Joseph E. Black et al. to Add Ford Motor Company (FMC) as a Party Defendant, (doc. # 10), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART”

Motion to intervene (Ford Motor Company) Moot / procedural

“FMC’s Motion to Intervene as a Third-Party Plaintiff (doe. # 23) is DENIED as moot.”

Ponder v. M/V CHILBAR
· 2002-05-13
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (doc. #20) is GRANTED. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE plaintiff George Ponder’s punitive damages claim.”

Podger v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.
· 2003-01-21
Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, defendant Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation’s motion to strike plaintiffs response to Gulfstream’s reply (doc. # 57) is DENIED.”

Pitts Ex Rel. Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc.
· 2004-06-15
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff Laurie Ann Pitts’s motion for leave to amend her Complaint, (doc. # 35).”

Brown v. Chertoff
· 2007-04-16
Summary judgment (federal defendants) Granted

“The Court GRANTS the motion (doc. # 65) of defendants Michael Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Security for summary judgment against Count III of Peter Brown’s Complaint.”

Dragon v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
· 2010-10-07
Class certification (plaintiff) Denied

“Dragon’s Motion for Class Certification is, hereby, DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The enumerated opening 2010 cohort was dominated by prisoner civil-rights and post-conviction matters, with additional contract, tort, miscellaneous enforcement, and commercial cases. This narrow historical cohort is not a career-wide caseload estimate.

A historical record

Judge Edenfield 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.