Carl J. Barbier
How Judge Barbier rules, drawn from 44 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Barbier
Carl J. Barbier is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Barbier received a commission on October 1, 1998. Judge Barbier assumed senior status on January 1, 2023.
Judge Barbier's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Barbier, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Judge's procedures and schedules ↗
- PRETRIAL NOTICE.Section J ↗
- JuryTrial.SectionJ ↗
- NonJuryTrials.SectionJ ↗
Key rules
Trial
Stand when speaking in the courtroom.
“Always stand when speaking.”
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 Barbier decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Haynes v. BP Exploration & Production, Barbier excluded Dr. Cook's general-causation report because it identified neither a specific chemical nor a harmful exposure level. Without admissible causation evidence, he granted summary judgment.
“Dr. Cook's report fails to identify a single chemical and, instead, refers generally to oil, dispersants, and volatile organic compounds. Moreover, even if Dr. Cook's report were to identify a specific chemical...his report fails to establish a harmful level of any chemical to the general population.”
On Sec.1983 false-arrest and Louisiana malicious-prosecution, an officer's own independent investigation (e.g. re-running an ID check) both breaks the chain of legal causation and supplies probable cause for qualified immunity, even if the investigation contained a mistake.
“the Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested, nor does it require officials to perform an error-free investigation.”
Procedural preferences
Treats Rule 54(b) certification of a partial final judgment as a rare exception, granted only on a real showing of hardship/injustice from delay: not as a courtesy so a dismissed party can avoid monitoring the docket for an eventual appeal.
“Rule 54(b) judgments are meant to be the exception, not the rule, and the Court can find no danger of hardship of the type required to outweigh the policy preferences against such partial final judgments.”
In a cargo-insurance dispute turning on sanctions licensing, Barbier granted a 180-day stay so the federal agency could address the predicate licensing question before the court proceeded.
“The Court finds that the Landis factors weigh in favor of a stay and that the benefits of OFAC’s assistance outweigh the cost of delaying this litigation.”
Cautions
In compassionate-release review, evidence of rehabilitation and youth at the time of the crime may be outweighed by the offense's circumstances and the sentencing factors governing public safety, punishment, and deterrence.
“The nature and circumstances of this offense are harrowing. Simply put, they forcefully weigh against a sentence reduction for Mr. Nelson, and they call into question whether Mr. Nelson would pose a danger to the safety of other individuals and his community if released.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Causation Opinion of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook (Rec. Doc. 51) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 50) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Deadlines (Rec. Doc. 52) is DENIED.”
“Therefore, Ms. Watkin's Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 41) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment (Rec. Docs. 41, 42) are hereby GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that LIGA's Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Final Judgment Regarding Summary Judgment in Favor of LIGA (Rec. Doc. 67) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Rec. Doc. 4) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is granted as to Plaintiff's negligence and battery claims. The motion is denied as to Plaintiff's nuisance claim under articles 667-669 of the Louisiana Civil Code.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 7) DENIED, as explained above.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 59) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 60) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and that Plaintiff River 1 is DISMISSED, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is DENIED IN PART as moot regarding LaShip's reputational harm damages”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 43) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the United States' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 4836) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Anadarko’s Motion is denied”
“Transocean's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 5103) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth above.”
The Deepwater Horizon Phase One decision, reported at 21 F. Supp. 3d 657, contains Rule 52(a) findings after a bench trial rather than a ruling on a party motion. Barbier found BP reckless and Transocean and Halliburton negligent, allocated comparative fault 67% to BP, 30% to Transocean, and 3% to Halliburton, and held BPXP subject to enhanced Clean Water Act penalties for gross negligence and willful misconduct. He found an extreme deviation from the standard of care and a conscious disregard of known risks. Although the conduct was sufficiently egregious for punitive damages, Fifth Circuit precedent barred liability for them. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States' Motion to Dismiss Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC's Amended Counterclaim No. 5 for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Rec. Doc. 111) is GRANTED. Denka's amended counterclaim no. 5 is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 45 days (N = 1).
From the 11 enumerated 2019-2022 cases: a large block of post-Hurricane-Ida first-party insurance suits vs State Farm (Ryan, Allen, Taylor: removed diversity, settling/dismissing 2024-25), Deepwater Horizon 'B3' BP toxic-tort cases (Hancock, Taylor v. BP), 'X v. United States' FTCA suits, an immigration/USCIS mandamus (Bedir), a criminal docket (US v. Romain/Coleman), and a prisoner civil-rights case (Sims).
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 28 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 9 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 70 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 79 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 800 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 805 |
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 Barbier: 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 Barbier with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Barbier, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Barbier's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace