Susie Morgan
How Judge Morgan rules, drawn from 43 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Morgan
Susie Morgan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Morgan received a commission on March 30, 2012.
Judge Morgan's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Morgan'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 Morgan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Copeland v. Offshore Marine Contractors, Morgan denied the employer’s partial summary judgment motion on maintenance and cure because the seaman had disclosed his earlier neck injury on a pre-hire questionnaire.
“IT IS ORDERED that OMC’s motion for partial summary judgment be and hereby is DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
In Rodriguez v. O'Reilly, Morgan held that the plaintiff’s pre-answer notice of voluntary dismissal was effective despite a pending Rule 12(b)(6) motion; she declined to apply an equitable exception to Rule 41(a)(1).
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal is DENIED, and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
In Rayne Memorial United Methodist Church v. Church Mutual, Morgan declined to adopt portions of a fee recommendation concerning hourly rates, billing judgment, and costs, and requested supplemental submissions before setting the award.
“The Court, having considered the record, the applicable law, relevant filings, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, DECLINES TO ADOPT the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the reasonableness of three of Plaintiff counsel’s hourly rates, Plaintiff counsel’s exercise of billing judgment, and the award of Plaintiff’s costs under Louisiana law.”
In Jordan, she denied summary judgment when the medical evidence left a factual dispute about whether a fall aggravated a preexisting knee condition.
“the Court cannot make credibility determinations or weigh evidence at this time.”
In Taylor, the court denied remand under the federal-officer statute after finding the contractor had presented a colorable federal defense; it treated colorability as a threshold question and reserved the defense’s merits.
“Amentum does not need to prove each element”
In Garon, the court allowed a late causation expert report despite a weak explanation for the delay because the testimony was central and a continuance cured prejudice to the defendant. It then denied summary judgment over conflicting expert opinions.
“Because Dr. Staggs’ testimony is essential to Plaintiff’s case”
In Lightfoot, Morgan denied further amendment of the claims against Repwest after earlier revisions failed to cure defects and the remaining claims were time barred.
“Based on Plaintiffs’ ‘repeated failure[s] to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,’136 the Court finds further amendment is not warranted. Moreover, any 131 Herrmann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 302 F.3d 552, 566 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1998)). 132 Marucci Sports, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., LP, 427 F.3d 987, 994 (5th Cir. 2005)). 133 R. Docs. 1-3; 1-4; 52-1, 60. This includes the amended complaint Plaintiffs attempted to file on April 15, 2026. 134 R. Doc. 50. 135 R. Doc. 53. 136 Herrmann Holdings Ltd., 302 F.3d at 566. 20 Case 2:26-cv-00434-SM-JVM Document 118 Filed 10/09/26 Page 21 of 21 amendment to Plaintiffs’ claims against Repwest would be futile, as such claims have prescribed. As a result, the Court will not grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.”
Cautions
In Lee v. R&R Home Care, Morgan imposed a personal Rule 11 sanction after counsel submitted a brief with a fabricated citation and quotation without verifying the material; she also referred counsel to the district disciplinary committee.
“IT IS ORDERED that David C. Pellegrin is personally SANCTIONED for his conduct in this case in the amount of $1,000.”
In Hamm, Morgan denied a renewed stay in a five-year-old class action. She found that further delay posed a concrete risk to witnesses’ memories while the defendants had not shown likely success on appeal.
“In addition, further delaying this case will prejudice Plaintiffs. This case is five years old, and a stay further increases the risk of witnesses’ memories failing them when litigation resumes.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(c) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Spartan's motion for summary judgment be and hereby is DENIED.”
“Because the Court considered these matters, which are outside the pleadings, the Court dismisses Spartan's motion to dismiss as moot and rules on Spartan's alternative request for summary judgment under Rule 56.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's ruling on Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DEFERRED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that OMC’s motion for partial summary judgment be and hereby is DENIED.”
“the Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputy Anthony Giovingo are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Deputy Anthony Giovingo is dismissed as a defendant in this action.”
“the Motion to Dismiss ... be and hereby is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims under the contracts clause of Article I, § 10 of the United States and the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment and DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claim under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is granted in favor of Defendants ... and against Plaintiff Minnie Ferguson on all claims.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ... Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliatory hostile work environment claim is GRANTED. ... Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s remaining claims is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to all of Plaintiff’s federal law claims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is granted in favor of Defendants ... and against Plaintiff Cezar Paz, individually and on behalf of his minor children ... on all claims.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“because this order grants summary judgment in Defendant's favor, the pending motion to dismiss and ex parte motion for a telephone status conference are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion in limine is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the spoliation motion is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is granted in favor of Defendants ... and against Plaintiff on all claims.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 104 days (N = 11).
From the enumerated 2021-2023 cases: a cluster of 'X v. United States' prisoner/habeas suits (thin docket record), Hurricane Ida first-party insurance (Petersen, Chubb), and intellectual-property suits (840 Trademark, 830 Patent), plus the long-running Sec.1983 civil-rights docket (Lawrence). NOS examples captured: 840 Trademark, 830 Patent, Civil Rights: Other, Insurance.
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 | 3 |
| 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 | 3 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 8 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 13 |
| Mar 2023 | 9 | 74 |
| Sep 2022 | 14 | 87 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 77 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 70 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 0 |
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 Morgan: 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 Morgan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Morgan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Morgan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace