Mark Warren Bennett
Judge Bennett no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Bennett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Bennett does not grant summary judgment merely because fact disputes are thin -- in Wilson he refused to weigh evidence or assess credibility on an SJ motion and denied both defense motions where a reasonable jury could find for the plaintiffs on the reasonableness of a guns-drawn stop and pat-down. Counsel moving for SJ before him on fact-intensive Fourth Amendment / excessive-force claims should expect any genuine dispute (and the attendant qualified-immunity question) to be sent to the jury.
“While a jury ultimately may not find all or any of the Wilsons' evidence credible, it is not for me to determine credibility on a motion for summary judgment. ... a reasonable jury could find for the Wilsons on their claims.”
Where a magistrate judge's Report & Recommendation is unobjected-to, Bennett applies the deferential 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) standard and will adopt it if he finds no ground to reject or modify -- but he still independently reviews the findings. An unresisted dispositive motion that has gone through an R&R is very likely to be granted; the time to contest it is by objecting to the R&R.
“In this case, no objections have been filed, and it appears to me upon review of Judge Strand's findings and conclusions, that there is no ground to reject or modify them. Therefore, I accept Judge Strand's Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion for summary judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“I accept Judge Strand's Report and Recommendation and, therefore, grant defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment. ... Plaintiff Celia's claim against North Central Correctional Facility is dismissed as frivolous. Judgment shall enter accordingly.”
“The September 16, 2016, Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 33) by defendants Lamp and the State of Iowa is denied.”
“Defendant Dorhout-Van Engen's September 1, 2016, Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (docket no. 32) is denied”
In an ancillary Rule 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. 1920 ruling on the plaintiffs' Bill of Costs after they became the prevailing party on the county defendants' voluntarily dismissed abuse-of-process counterclaim, Bennett awarded the Van Steltons $896 in deposition costs. He found that Sheriff Weber's deposition was 'necessarily obtained for use in the case,' rather than merely investigative. The order shows how Bennett handles costs disputes but does not resolve a dispositive motion. Quote: 'Therefore, I find that Sheriff Weber's deposition was necessarily obtained for use in this case and award the Van Steltons' $896.00 in deposition costs.' Signed 'MARK W. BENNETT, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE'.
“Crown's motions to exclude the testimony of the two experts, pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), are denied.”
“Crown's Motion For Summary Judgment is denied in part and granted in part. ... The only part of Crown's Motion For Summary Judgment that is granted is Crown's challenge to the Reinards' claim of breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose on the ground that the claim is untimely.”
“The defendant's February 1, 2017, Motion To Confirm Arbitration Order And Dismiss With Prejudice (docket no. 13) is granted. ... This action is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.”
“I have reviewed the Wollesens' pleading of their RICO claim ... and I find that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ... I cannot say, however, that allowing the Wollesens to attempt to replead their RICO claim would be futile ... THEREFORE, The pending motions to dismiss, docket nos. 24, 27, and 29, are denied as moot; The Wollesens shall have to and including August 9, 2016, to file a second amended complaint repleading their RICO claim.”
“The petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus (docket no. 1) is denied. ... A certificate of appealability is denied.”
“MetroPCS's ... Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 13) is granted, to the extent that the court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant MetroPCS ... this case is transferred to the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406.”
“plaintiff Community Voice's ... Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 4) is denied without prejudice to assertion in a court with personal jurisdiction over the parties.”
“Upon consideration of the pertinent factors in light of the arguments of the parties and the record in the case, the court denies Aventure's August 3, 2010, Motion For Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 12).”
“Vulcan's challenge to expert testimony from Mr. Fournier is denied.”
“Defendant Vulcan's ... Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 25) is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: a. The motion is granted as to the Klingenbergs' 'manufacturing defect' claim ... but b. The motion is otherwise denied.”
“Therefore, the court accepts Judge Zoss's Report and Recommendation of January 3, 2007, and orders that defendant Bucio-Sanchez's Motion To Suppress is denied.”
“I hereby accept the Report And Recommendation (docket no. 73) and deny defendant Cibrian-Lopez's Motion To Suppress (docket no. 25).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1004 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 296 days (N = 4).
The nonexhaustive historical sample includes Van Stelton v. Van Stelton, FDIC v. Backhaus, Celia v. NCCF, and Wilson v. Lamp, spanning civil rights, prisoner Section 1983, and banking. Bennett retired in 2019, and Wilson was later reassigned to Judge Strand. The sample does not represent his full caseload or all senior-status reassignments.
A historical record
Judge Bennett 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.