Robert Lowell Miller Jr.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana district Retired 2023 · served 1985–2023 Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 19 signed orders read

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

Signed rulings

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

Bolden v. Caravan Facilities Management, LLC
112 F. Supp. 3d 785 · 2015-06-08
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 22)”

Shoun v. Best Formed Plastics, Inc.
28 F. Supp. 3d 786 · 2014-06-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the renewed motion to take judicial notice [docket # 13] and DENIES the motion to dismiss the amended complaint [docket # 14]”

Motion to reconsider (defendant) Denied

“Because denial of the company's motion to dismiss was proper, the court DENIES the motion to reconsider [docket # 19]”

Whitaker v. Appriss, Inc.
266 F. Supp. 3d 1103 · 2017-07-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Appriss's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 175] and directs the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.”

Sahlhoff v. Gurley-Leep Automotive Management Corp.
136 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · 2015-09-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted, so the court GRANTS the defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. # 25). The court will give Mr. Sahlhoff 21 days from the date of this order within which to file an amended complaint.”

Brown v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC
244 F. Supp. 3d 810 · 2017-03-26
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, Biomet's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 137] is GRANTED.”

Whitaker v. Appriss, Inc.
229 F. Supp. 3d 809 · 2017-01-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES Appriss's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction [Doc. No. 150] and ends the stay on proceedings.”

Wright v. Mishawaka Housing Authority
225 F. Supp. 3d 752 · 2016-12-01
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The court GRANTS MHA'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 30] IN PART as to Ms. Wright's fourth, sixth, and seventh claims, DENIES THE MOTION IN PART as to Ms. Wright's first, second, third, and fifth claims, and GRANTS MHA's motion to strike the class allegations [Doc. No. 32].”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“GRANTS MHA's motion to strike the class allegations [Doc. No. 32].”

Gary/Chicago International Airport Authority v. Zaleski
144 F. Supp. 3d 1019 · 2015-11-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Third-party defendant OXY USA's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint (Doc. No. 43) is GRANTED. The amended third-party complaint (Doc. No. 41) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation (Illinois/Missouri class-certification reconsideration)
273 F.R.D. 516 · 2010-05-19
Class certification (plaintiff) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the plaintiffs' motions to amend the court's denial of the class certification orders [Doc. nos. 1326, 1333, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1855, 1861, 1866].”

Women's Health Link, Inc. v. Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corp.
44 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1171 · 2016-01-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For all of these reasons, the court GRANTS Citilink's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 51], and DENIES Women's Health Link's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 54].”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“DENIES Women's Health Link's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 54].”

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dometic Corp.
371 F. Supp. 3d 472 · 2019-03-06
Judgment on the pleadings (plaintiff) Granted in part

“GRANTS Liberty Mutual's motion for judgment on the pleadings, [Doc. No. 37], with respect to Count I of its complaint, which seeks a declaratory judgment of no duty to defend or indemnify under the 2004-2005 policy based on exhaustion; DENIES Liberty Mutual's motion for judgment on the pleadings, [Doc. No. 37], with respect to Count II of its complaint.”

Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS Dometic's motion for judgment on the pleadings, [Doc. No. 39], with respect to Count II of Liberty Mutual's complaint to the extent it seeks a declaratory judgment of no duty to defend; DENIES Dometic's motion for judgment on the pleadings, [Doc. No. 39], with respect to Count II ... to the extent it seeks a declaratory judgment of no duty to indemnify.”

United States v. Blake (Garnett)
817 F. Supp. 2d 1082 · 2011-09-23
Motion to dismiss indictment (defendant) Denied

“For all these reasons, the court DENIES the defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. # 94).”

A historical record

Judge Miller 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.