Andre Maurice Davis

How Judge Davis rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Davis no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Position
district
Status
Elevated to a higher court
Served
1995–2009
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1995-08-14
Education
University of Pennsylvania, B.A. (1971); University of Maryland School of Law, J.D. (1978)
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Davis decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In Munyiri, Davis tied the arrest analysis to the discretion supported by the specific record.

“there is scant justification for calling into question the discretionary decision of Officer Haduch to arrest plaintiff rather than to issue a citation to plaintiff under the circumstances here.”

In National Union, he favored a functional reading of insurance-policy language over a narrow formal definition.

“jurisdictions that have faced this issue have wisely declined to adopt a narrow, legalistic definition of the term, opting instead for a more holistic analysis.”

In Perez, he found the remaining workers sufficiently alike for collective treatment.

“I agree that the remaining plaintiffs meet the ‘similarly situated’ requirement for collective action.”

Procedural preferences

In Glaxo, Davis emphasized public access to the reasoning behind judicial decisions.

“this court is a public institution doing the public’s business.”

In Hardesty, he declined a one-sided reopening of the evidentiary record after discovery and summary-judgment briefing had closed.

“it is simply not appropriate to reopen the factual record on a unilateral basis after discovery has closed and arguments in support of the cross-motions for summary judgment had been fully presented.”

In Stronghold, he applied the forum-selection clause without displacing the original plaintiffs’ venue choice for the full case.

“although the forum selection clause does apply to the disputes underlying the third party claims, it does not trump plaintiffs’ interest in selecting the venue of their choice.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Leavitt
· 2007-04-23
Motions to seal (intervenor) Denied

“Accordingly, the motions to seal Memorandum Opinion Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Paper Nos. 78, 79) are DENIED, and The motion to dissolve and for entry of order (Paper No. 80) is GRANTED.”

Motion to dissolve and enter order (intervenor) Granted
Hardesty v. American Seating Co.
· 2002-04-22
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“No basis is offered for vacating the judgment entered in this case in favor of defendant; accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied.”

Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. v. Sereboff
· 2004-05-10
Motion for attorney fees expenses and interest (plaintiff) Granted

“That the plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees, expenses and prejudgment interest is GRANTED;”

Rudman v. Leavitt
· 2008-09-26
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (secretary) Granted

“For the reasons set forth, the motion to dismiss or for summary judgment shall be granted and the order under review affirmed.”

Proa v. NRT Mid Atlantic, Inc.
· 2009-07-01
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART, INSOFAR AS THE PRIOR ORDER OF THIS COURT CONCLUDED THAT PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS WERE UNTIMELY, BUT IS OTHERWISE DENIED.”

Proa v. NRT Mid Atlantic, Inc.
· 2009-04-20
Motion to vacate magistrate appointment and rulings (plaintiffs) Denied

“For the reasons stated, plaintiffs’ motion to vacate (Paper No. 188) is DENIED and motion to stay (Paper No. 206) is likewise DENIED.”

Motions to stay (plaintiffs) Denied
Stronghold Security LLC v. Sectek, Inc.
· 2008-10-17
Motion to dismiss third party complaint (third-party defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated, the amended third party complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Motions to transfer (third-party defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the motion to transfer the entire litigation to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is DENIED.”

Wilson v. Lilly
· 2004-06-14
Motion for voluntary dismissal (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the amended motion for voluntary dismissal shall be granted by separate order.”

Scott v. American Airlines, Inc.
· 2002-02-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“That defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED AND THIS CASE IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”

Shanghai Meihao Electric, Inc. v. Leviton Manufacturing Co.
· 2004-07-30
Motion to intervene (proposed intervenors) Denied

“That the motion to intervene and the motion to transfer are DENIED.”

Motions to transfer (proposed intervenors) Denied
Stone v. Thompson
· 2001-09-27
Motion for attorney fees and costs (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $66,908.50, together with costs of $431.08”

Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Mobile Dredging and Pumping Co.
· 2004-09-06
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated below, the motion shall be denied.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 182 days (N = 10).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 119 days (N = 2).

A fixed sample of ten terminated historical cases included five prisoner civil-rights matters and one each involving habeas, other civil rights, a stockholder dispute, motor-vehicle product liability, and another federal statutory claim. One case retained a motion-entry timeline.

A historical record

Judge Davis 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.