Edward J. Lodge
Judge Lodge no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Lodge decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A motion to reconsider that merely re-argues points already made and rejected does not warrant relief; he requires a genuine intervening change in law, newly discovered evidence, or clear/manifest error, and treats untimeliness as an independent bar.
“Whatever may be the purpose of Rule 59(e) it should not be supposed that it is intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge. ... [A] rehash of the arguments previously presented affords no basis for a revision of the Court's order.”
On preliminary-injunction motions he requires concrete, non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm -- a lis pendens already protecting the disputed property, or damage that has already occurred and cannot be undone by an injunction, both defeated the requested relief.
“Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant granting a preliminary injunction ... a plaintiff must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.”
Procedural preferences
Routinely decides motions on the papers without oral argument once the parties have adequately briefed the issue, invoking the local rule that a hearing is not required when it would not meaningfully aid the decision.
“Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court conclusively finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, this motion shall be decided on the record before this Court without oral argument.”
Treats a party's failure to timely respond to a motion as consent to it under the local rules -- a real risk for any litigant (including pro se parties) who misses a response deadline.
“Such a failure to respond 'may be deemed a waiver by the moving party of the...motion' and 'may be deemed to constitute a consent to...the granting of said motion or other application.' ... Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Motion to Dismiss is deemed to constitute his consent to the granting of the motion and/or his waiver to the same.”
Cautions
Enforces AEDPA's one-year habeas limitations period strictly, dismissing untimely petitions with prejudice and declining a certificate of appealability where the petitioner raises neither equitable tolling nor actual innocence.
“Petitioner did not file the instant federal habeas Petition until December 6, 2016. Therefore, even with statutory tolling, the Petition was filed over nine years too late. Because Petitioner does not argue that he is entitled to equitable tolling or that he is actually innocent, the Petition must be dismissed as untimely.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing and being fully advised in the premises, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and/or Alter or Amend Judgment (Dkt. No. 200).”
“1) Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Memorandum, Decision and Order and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or for Relief from Judgment (Docket No. ) is DENIED.”
“2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay of Judgment (Docket No. 24) is GRANTED.”
“HEREBY ORDERS that the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt No. 61) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 27) is DENIED.”
“NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED.”
“1) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgement (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED.”
“2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Joinder of Parties (Dkt. No. 28) is DENIED.”
“3) Defendant McFadden’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED. The case is dismissed as to Defendant McFadden.”
“4) Defendant Dickenson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11) is STAYED.”
“Defendants’ Objection to Complaint for Lack of Ratification of Commencement and Petition to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP Rule 17(a), Real Party in Interest, With Affidavit in Support (Docket No. 45) is DENIED;”
“Defendants’ Verified Notice of Non Response and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Ratify (Docket No. 48) is DENIED; and ... Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Respond and Affidavit in Support (Docket No. 54) is DENIED.”
“the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 106) is DENIED.”
“THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 210) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“4. Plaintiff Kendall’s Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class Counsel (Dkt. 11 and 12) are DENIED.”
“2. Plaintiff Kendall’s Motion for Emergency Injunction and Mandamus (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.”
“3. Plaintiff Kendall’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 20) is DENIED.”
“1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 16) is DENIED.”
“2. Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Dkt. 25) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 561 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 144 days (N = 5).
The reviewed cases, filed in 2013 and from 2016 through 2017, include employment discrimination, civil-rights and excessive-force claims, habeas review, contract and employee-benefit disputes, a cable-franchise racketeering case, personal-injury actions, and debt collection. Two matters ended without a contested ruling by Judge Lodge: one settled in mediation and one contains no available motion history.
A historical record
Judge Lodge 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.