Brandon Scott Long
How Judge Long rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Long
Brandon Scott Long is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Long received a commission on December 19, 2023.
Judge Long's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Long's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Long decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Walsh v. ECO Roof and Solar, Long denied the defendants' motion to set aside a preliminary default. He found their default willful and their motion failed to identify a meritorious defense to any of the plaintiff's claims.
“because Defendants’ default was willful and because they offer no defense (much less a meritorious one) to any of Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants have failed to show good cause for setting aside the entry of preliminary default.”
In Western Bankers Capital v. Kirton McConkie, Long allowed a third-party indemnity claim to proceed because its pleaded basis was plausible and fault questions required factual findings.
“At the dismissal stage, the Court is only concerned with whether the third-party plaintiff has plausibly alleged a basis for an entitlement to legal indemnity.”
In Coppersmith v. John Doe, Long remanded after allegations tied a nondiverse employee to the entrance-mat precaution that allegedly failed, leaving a possible personal-duty claim.
“The petition instead alleges that Walmart assigned Carey the very precaution that failed, and that his failure to discharge it caused Coppersmith’s injury.”
Procedural preferences
In Giles v. GM Financial, Long stayed discovery while motions to dismiss were pending. He found those motions likely to dispose of the action, discovery unnecessary to decide them, and no impending trial deadline.
“The Court finds that Defendants here have demonstrated that good cause exists to stay discovery because the Court’s resolution of the pending motions to dismiss has a high likelihood of disposing of the entire action.”
In Flood v. Medtronic, Long treated pre-suit exhaustion as fixed at removal and disregarded improperly joined health-care defendants’ citizenship when assessing diversity.
“Because Flood cannot establish a cause of action against the Health Care Defendants in state court, they are improperly joined, and the Court disregards their Louisiana citizenship.”
Cautions
In McManus v. Mancuso, Long granted two unopposed dismissal motions without prejudice. He held that liberal construction of self-represented filings did not excuse compliance with federal filing rules.
“Although courts construe pro se filings liberally, the Court still requires pro se parties to ‘abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.’”
In Stewart Development v. 111 Veterans Boulevard, Long admitted disputed technical expert testimony before a bench trial and left its weight to cross-examination.
“cross examination is the proper vehicle for Stewart’s concerns.”
In Heney v. Entergy Operations, Long dismissed a negligent termination theory with prejudice under Louisiana's at will employment doctrine despite allegations of a mishandled drug test. He allowed separate general negligence and related claims to proceed past the motion to dismiss.
“Louisiana’s at-will employment doctrine thus compels dismissal of Ms. Heney’s negligent termination theory of recovery against both Defendants.”
In Flood v. Medtronic, Long found that alleging a device broke did not identify its construction defect. The pleading also lacked an alternative design and a warning tied to the treating physician’s decision; he allowed amendment.
“She alleges that the Endo Stitch device broke, but not what about it was defective.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to stay the Magistrate Judge's order on Plaintiff's motion to compel pending disposition of Defendants' objections and motion for review under Rule 72(a) of the Magistrate Judge's order is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the ALJ's decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Adopted MJ R&R (no objection); pro se 1983 vs T-Mobile DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous/failure to state a claim (1915). This screening dismissal did not resolve a party motion.
Sua sponte subject-matter-jurisdiction remand: post-removal amendment added a non-diverse defendant, destroying complete diversity, so the case was REMANDED to the 21st JDC (Tangipahoa) under Rule 12(h)(3). This remand did not resolve a party motion.
Adopted MJ Roby's R&R (no objection); pro se 1983 prison-conditions TRANSFERRED to W.D. La. under 28 USC 1406(a) (improper venue). This transfer did not resolve a party motion.
“For the following reasons, Johnson’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Robles’s motion14 to vacate and Robles’s motion15 for a default judgment are DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robles’s claims against the remaining Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion24 to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer venue is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Defendant’s request for transfer... The motion is DENIED IN PART, however, as to Defendant’s request for dismissal rather than transfer because the Court finds that ‘the interest of justice’ requires transfer rather than dismissal.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the unopposed motion 13 of Defendant the United States of America to dismiss this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s unopposed motion14 for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant G. Denver and Co., LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion23 to dismiss is DENIED.”
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 20 |
| 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 20 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 23 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 27 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 42 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, not for Judge Long: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 10,411 | 79.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 3,511 | 86.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,814 | 14.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 4,062 | 86.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 23.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 10,411 | 79.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,506 | 10.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,610 | 24.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,635 | 69.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 11,535 | 24.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 16,631 | 36 months |
| Sep 2019 | 9,196 | 10.3 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Long with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Long, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Long's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace