Gerald L. Rushfelt
How Judge Rushfelt decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On Rule 35 examinations, Rushfelt treats the Scheduling Order's exam deadline as 'presumptive,' not hard, and will find good cause to extend it when the moving party did not know an objection was coming (D. Kan. R. 35.1 allows an exam 'at any time prior to trial'). He also reads the Rule 35(a)(2)(B) specificity requirement pragmatically: a motion that gives general details (time, place, examining doctor) is sufficient even if it omits the manner, scope, and conditions, which the court leaves to the parties to work out. Practical lesson: a Rule 35 motion need not be exhaustively detailed to be granted before him, and a late objection by the opposing party can itself justify extending the exam deadline.
“when Rule 35 motions are specific enough to provide general details of the examination, but fail to specify all of the elements as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35, the court 'will leave the specifics to be worked out by the parties.' ... Defendant has shown good cause for an extension of the deadline for completing a Rule 35 examination.”
On attorney withdrawal, Rushfelt enforces D. Kan. R. 83.5.5 strictly when no substitute counsel has appeared, treating its client-protection steps as substantive, not formal. Counsel cannot withdraw merely by filing a notice; the motion must (1) state reasons, (2) advise the client he is personally responsible for orders/deadlines, (3) advise of impending deadlines, (4) give the client's current contact information, and include proof the client was served. Practical lesson: before moving to withdraw from a still-represented client in ksd, paper the file with the required client warnings and proof of service, or expect a denial without prejudice.
“The Court knows of no rule that authorizes counsel to simply file a paper to announce his withdrawal and thus abandon his client, particularly when there is no new counsel to fulfill his responsibilities to the Court, to his client, and to opposing counsel.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motion for rule 35 examination N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to withdraw N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion for Rule 35 Examination and to Extend Time (doc. 73) is sustained. Plaintiff shall submit to a physical examination by Dr. Ernest Neighbor at the doctor's professional office in Independence, Missouri, at a date and time mutually convenient to the parties.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Motion to Withdraw (ECF 14) filed by Plaintiff's counsel is denied without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 37 days (N = 1).
Not enumerated this session. Rushfelt was a Kansas City, Kansas referral magistrate (suffix -GLR) handling discovery and case management across the district judges' civil dockets, plus dispositive R&Rs; as a recalled magistrate he also took assignments in other districts (e.g. the District of Nebraska by designation).