Brendan Abell Hurson
How Judge Hurson rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hurson
Brendan Abell Hurson is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Hurson received a commission on October 6, 2023.
Judge Hurson's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hurson'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).
- Order 2026-05: Redacted Filings in FRCP 5.2(c) Cases ↗
- Order 2026-03: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Order 2025-05: Procedures for the Filing of Sealed Documents ↗
- Amended Order 2021-13: Removal Actions ↗
- Amended Order 2022-04: Social Security Cases ↗
- Second Amended Order 2021-02: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Order 2020-01: Discovery in Criminal Cases ↗
- Order 2018-07: Amicus Briefs ↗
- Order 2018-08: Service of Rule 68 Offers of Judgment ↗
- Second Amended Order 2025-01: Petitions for Writs of Habeas Corpus—Alien Detainee ↗
- Order 2024-01: Deficiency Notices ↗
How Judge Hurson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On remanding an insurance action for lack of diversity, Hurson awarded fees after the removing insurer failed to allege the members’ citizenship and declined to stipulate to remand when alerted to the problem. He applied objective reasonableness rather than subjective good faith.
“Salisbury House is correct that an objectively reasonable basis for removal, not good faith, is the correct test for determining whether an award of attorney's fees should accompany a remand order.”
Procedural preferences
In a receiver’s clawback suit, Hurson held that investors could not bring indemnification counterclaims against the receiver while the appointing court’s litigation stay remained in force, even if they viewed the counterclaims as compulsory.
“Absent relief from the litigation stay imposed by the Receivership Orders in the Enforcement Action, which has been pending since 2018 and remains ongoing, the Counterclaimants cannot bring their indemnification counterclaims in this action.”
In a civil-rights action, Hurson considered the plaintiff’s failure to answer a show-cause order in his service and failure-to-prosecute analysis and denied a separate request to dismiss the entire case as a sanction.
“Though troubled by Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the Court declines to dismiss any claims on that basis alone and thus denies the Motion for Sanctions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF 21, is GRANTED”
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss, ECF 49 and 51, are GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs’ motions at ECFs 56, 57, 58, 77, and 82 are DENIED.”
“motions, including the motion for summary judgment (ECF 57), motion for expedited discovery (ECF 77), and motions for default (ECF 58 and ECF 82) will all be denied as moot.”
“Defendant Day's motion to dismiss is DENIED”
“motions to dismiss the counterclaims are GRANTED.”
“Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity, and summary judgment is granted in his favor.”
“Under that standard, I will DENY Plaintiff’s motion, GRANT Defendant’s motion, and AFFIRM the Commissioner’s decision.”
“Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the SSA’s judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF 9, is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s alternative motion for remand, ECF 9, is DENIED. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the SSA’s judgment is AFFIRMED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, ECF 9, is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s alternative motion for remand, ECF 9, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED without prejudice.”
“PGPD’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 40) is GRANTED IN PART as to Count II and DENIED IN PART as to remaining counts because these counts are REMANDED to state court”
“J&H Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 41) is GRANTED IN PART as to Count II and DENIED IN PART as to remaining counts because these counts are REMANDED to state court”
“The joint Motion for Sanctions (ECF 57) is DENIED.”
“Salisbury House’s motion to remand is GRANTED and the request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 72 days (N = 11).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 24 days (N = 10).
The reviewed matters span constitutional and administrative challenges, copyright, securities, mortgage servicing, civil rights, employment, and criminal or forfeiture cases. Separate terminated civil cohorts filed soon after Hurson’s district commission and in January 2025 supply case durations; their mix and timing are illustrative only.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 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 District of Maryland, not for Judge Hurson: 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 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 151 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,564 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 457 | 13.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 19 | 33.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,191 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,119 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,370 | 9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,053 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,629 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,469 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,709 | 7.9 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 Hurson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hurson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hurson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace