Celeste F. Bremer
How Judge Bremer rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Bremer no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Bremer
Celeste F. Bremer served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, including service as Chief Magistrate Judge. She earned a law degree from the University of Iowa and a doctorate in adult education from Drake University.
How Judge Bremer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Cautions
In Quick v. Donaldson Co., Inc., Bremer granted summary judgment on the federal claim, then dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction.
“For the reasons set forth below, summary judgment is granted on count III. As for Quick's remaining state claims against DCI, and Musgrove and Daniels, all counts are dismissed without prejudice”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court denies Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Clerk's No. 8), on the state claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; on the claim for immunity under Iowa Code 670.4(3); and on the claim for qualified immunity with respect to the section 1983 claim based on false arrest. The Court grants the Motion on the issue of Union County's liability under section 1983.”
“For the reasons set forth below, summary judgment is granted on count III. As for Quick's remaining state claims against DCI, and Musgrove and Daniels, all counts are dismissed without prejudice”
“3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 29) is granted on the following claims: 4. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 29) is denied on the following claims”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and II (federal gender and age discrimination claims) is granted. Plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact suggesting that Defendant's proffered reasons for discharge”
“Vallejo's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is granted as to claims against him individually, but denied as to claims against him in his official capacity.”
“The Court denies Wal-Mart's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.”
“Vallejo's Motion for a New Trial ... [is] denied.”
“The Motions to dismiss (Clerk’s Nos. 9,11, 30, and 31) are granted, subject to Plaintiffs’ right to assert their state law claims in state court.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 17) is granted as to Plaintiff's claim of discriminatory discharge and as to all claims of individual liability under Title VII, but is denied as to Plaintiff's claims of discriminatory demotion and retaliation.”
“For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 12).”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants GTL's Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 16) on Plaintiff's claims that GTL breached the insurance contract and acted in bad faith in denying the insurance claim.”
“The Court grants in part and denies in part Affiliated FM Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (Clerk's No. 26). Specifically, the Court grants Affiliated FM's Motion to Dismiss St. Paul's declaratory judgment action, but denies the Motion (Clerk's No. 26) in all other respects, including all remaining claims asserted in Palmer & Cay's and St. Paul's Third-Party Complaints.”
“The Court denies Affiliated FM's Motion to Dismiss VeraSun Energy Corporation's Cross-Claim (Clerk's No. 32).”
“The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 20) is granted; no genuine issues of material fact remain to be determined at trial, and the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
“Viewing the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Clerk's No. 36) for the following reasons.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 487 days (N = 11).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 92 days (N = 2).
The sample covers about 21 cases assigned to Celeste Bremer from 2008 through 2021. Criminal-magistrate and miscellaneous matters are listed separately and do not contribute to the civil-duration figures.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Bremer was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2023.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Bremer no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.