C. Michael Hill
Judge Hill no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Hill decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He enforces claim preclusion rigorously against repeat litigants: a Title VII plaintiff who has already litigated a civil-rights suit arising from the same events cannot bring the discrimination claims in a second suit, because under the transactional test they share the same nucleus of operative facts and could have been joined in the first action.
“Under the transactional test, it is clear that both Landor I and Landor II are based on the same nucleus of operative facts.”
Procedural preferences
He expects a plaintiff who is still exhausting EEOC remedies to protect later Title VII claims by asking the court for a stay (or to amend) while the first suit is pending; silence about a pending EEOC charge, followed by a fresh lawsuit after losing, will be treated as impermissible claim-splitting rather than excused by the timing of the right-to-sue letter.
“there were options available to Landor to avoid preclusion and preserve Landor's Title VII claims; counsel, however, chose not to pursue any of those available options or to take any measures whatsoever to avoid preclusion.”
On arbitration he favors compelling and staying over dismissing: where employees signed a valid arbitration agreement, he routes the dispute to arbitration and keeps the case administratively open rather than dismissing it outright, preserving the parties' ability to return to court if needed.
“I recommend that the Motion to Compel be GRANTED, and that this matter be STAYED pending arbitration.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Board Members, in their individual capacities, will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief my be granted.”
“In light of the above, summary judgment on plaintiffs claim against the Board will be granted.”
“the magistrate judge recommends Stryker's motion be granted with respect to plaintiffs claims alleged under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, and those claims be dismissed, but that the motion to dismiss be denied with respect to plaintiffs redhibition claim.”
“For the following reasons, I recommend that the Motion to Compel be GRANTED, and that this matter be STAYED pending arbitration.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Innovative Manpower Solutions, L.L.C. [rec. doc. 7] is DENIED.”
“it is recommended that the Motions to Dismiss [rec. docs. 7,16 and 22] be granted and, accordingly, that this lawsuit be dismissed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 798 days (N = 15).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 175 days (N = 4).
As the Lafayette Division's full-time magistrate judge (2001-2015), Hill received the division's Social Security disability appeals, prisoner and employment civil-rights suits, and a heavy volume of maritime/offshore personal-injury, products-liability, insurance and contract cases that he carried to judgment on consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c). The 15 cases timed below are 2008-filed consent civil cases for which the record carries filing and termination dates; they are a selection of one filing year, not a random caseload median.
A historical record
Judge Hill no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.