Rebecca Grady Jennings
How Judge Jennings rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Jennings decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed disability-discrimination case, concrete comparator evidence was enough to preserve the claim for a jury where the employee showed that a coworker received similar lifting accommodations and that treatment diverged after his restrictions became a disability.
“There is sufficient evidence on the record to show both had previously received similar lifting accommodations, and that Holly only received disparate treatment when his restrictions progressed to a disability.”
A habeas petition aimed at present custody, rather than the validity or execution of a removal order, can remain within the district court's jurisdiction. Framing the requested relief as release from unlawful detention was decisive in the reviewed case.
“Patel states that he is challenging his detention, not the IJ’s decision, nor his removal. Because of that, this Court has jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of Patel’s detention.”
In another detention case, the judge treated the governing detention statute and its regulations as requiring a neutral bond hearing, and ordered release before any renewed detention without that process.
“Because Ariza is being detained pursuant to Section 1226, relevant regulations entitle her to a neutral bond hearing.”
Procedural preferences
A motion filed after the pretrial deadline needs a concrete good-cause showing tied to genuinely new information or technology. Prior notice of the issue and a failure to identify a new method defeated that showing in the reviewed criminal case.
“Hankison both had notice that law enforcement had attempted to unlock the phone with incorrect passcodes as early as September 2022 and has made no showing that new technology unavailable to the FBI came to light after the motion deadline had passed. As a result, Hankison has not demonstrated good cause for his untimeliness.”
Cautions
A party that does not answer a summary-judgment argument risks losing the claim as abandoned; the court dismissed two claims on that basis in the reviewed employment case.
“In the Sixth Circuit a plaintiff is deemed to have abandoned a claim when they fail to address it in response to a motion for summary judgment.”
A discovery request needs facts showing how the material would help the defense. General descriptions and speculative assertions did not satisfy the prima facie materiality burden in the reviewed motion to compel.
“At best, Hankison’s assertions of materiality are speculative, which is insufficient to prevail on his Motion to Compel.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Bland Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [DE 80] is GRANTED”
“Bluegrass Cellular's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 85] is GRANTED”
“Petty's Motion for partial Summary Judgment [DE 89] is DENIED”
“Charter's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 41] is DENIED as to Count One, disability discrimination, and Count Two, failure to accommodate.”
“Charter's Motion to Strike [DE 46] is DENIED”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration (DN 32) is DENIED.”
“the Court ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [DE 4] is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 40] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part... Count 4 (Violation of North Carolina's Unfair Claims Settlement Practice), Count 5 (Unfair Competition Law – North Carolina), Count 6 (Insurance Bad Faith), and Count 7 (Unfair and Deceptive Insurance Practices) are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Kilgore's motion to suppress the incriminating statement given in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights [DE 19] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above”
“Kilgore's motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights [DE 22] is DENIED.”
“I. Reyes's Supplemental Motion to Suppress [DE 155] is DENIED.”
“Stiff's motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights [DE 25] is DENIED.”
“Hankison's Motion to Compel [DE 150] is DENIED.”
“Hankison's motion for acquittal [DE 253] is DENIED.”
“Powers's Motion to Amend or Correct [DE 39] is DENIED,”
“Fulkerson's motion to exclude expert testimony [DE 36] is GRANTED IN PART regarding Batterton's testimony that relies on excluded evidence and Batterton's legal conclusion that a reasonable officer would be acting consistent with generally accepted police practice in using soft-empty-hand-control and DENIED IN PART on all other grounds.”
“Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment [DE 32] is GRANTED IN PART with respect to Count 5 and DENIED IN PART with respect to Counts 2 and 3.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Small sample of terminated dockets naming Rebecca Grady Jennings as assigned judge, drawn from her earliest months on the bench. Mix of consumer-credit, trademark, employment, and government-contract cases; several settled quickly after a motion was filed but before decision.
Draft for Judge Jennings with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jennings, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jennings's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace