Robert Gillespie James
How Judge James rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge James decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Employs a careful statutory-interpretation method, including an Erie guess on unsettled state law, to resolve dispositive questions, such as holding a state remediation statute permits additional damages only where an express contract so provides.
“Denbury has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 31] moving the Court to (1) dismiss the Moores’ claim for remediation to original condition and (2) find that Denbury’s only obligation is to fund the most feasible remediation plan under Act 312. For the following reasons, Denbury’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Will grant summary judgment on a single dispositive, unambiguous contract or policy term without reaching an ambiguous one.
“Mutual of Omaha’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 32] is GRANTED, and Mrs. Pepper’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 30] is DENIED. Mrs. Pepper’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Cautions
Treats a mandatory preliminary injunction that would alter the status quo as particularly disfavored, denying it absent a substantial likelihood of success and irreparable harm.
“Pham’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Denbury has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 31] moving the Court to (1) dismiss the Moores’ claim for remediation to original condition and (2) find that Denbury’s only obligation is to fund the most feasible remediation plan under Act 312. For the following reasons, Denbury’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Pham’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED to the extent they seek qualified immunity with respect to all claims against them in their individual capacities for monetary damages. Those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Mutual of Omaha’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 32] is GRANTED, and Mrs. Pepper’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 30] is DENIED. Mrs. Pepper’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Mutual of Omaha’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 32] is GRANTED, and Mrs. Pepper’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 30] is DENIED.”
“Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 22] filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Plaintiff Jerry L. Johnson opposes the motion. [Doc. No. 27]. For reasons assigned below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 88] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE at Plaintiff’s cost.”
Draft for Judge James with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge James, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge James's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace