Edward J. Lodge
How Judge Lodge rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Lodge no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Lodge
Edward J. Lodge served on the United States District Court for the District of Idaho after receiving his commission on November 27, 1989. He served as chief judge from 1992 to 1999 and assumed senior status on July 3, 2015. He retired from hearing cases in July 2019.
How Judge Lodge decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Laurino v. Syringa General Hospital, Lodge denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider or amend judgment because it largely repeated arguments made against summary judgment and did not establish grounds for relief under Rules 59(e) or 60(b).
“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.”
In Wisdom v. Centerville Fire District, Lodge denied preliminary relief because the alleged injury was speculative given an existing lis pendens on the disputed property.
“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
In Multiquip v. Water Management Systems, Lodge decided the defendants’ preliminary-injunction motion on the briefs after finding that oral argument would not significantly aid the decision. He denied the motion because the defendants had not shown entitlement to preliminary relief.
“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.”
In Coy v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Lodge deemed the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the dismissal motion consent to its grant under the local rule. He also found the claims barred by res judicata.
“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
In Ramsey v. Blades, Lodge dismissed a federal habeas petition as untimely under AEDPA even after statutory tolling because it was filed more than nine years late and the petitioner raised 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.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Lodge was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Lodge 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.