Charles D. Austin
How Judge Austin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Certifies a class where common questions about an institutional practice and a common damages method predominate over individual variations.
“At this juncture, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the requirements for class certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).”
Procedural preferences
Narrows proposed class definitions when individualized circumstances could overwhelm questions suitable for classwide proof.
“the Court exercises its discretion to modify the proposed class definitions to eliminate subclass A, to account for the impact of individualized considerations overwhelming those questions properly susceptible to class treatment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS UNUM's Partial Motion to Dismiss Count II for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Count II is dismissed without prejudice.”
“the SSA's judgment is AFFIRMED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.”
“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.”
“the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“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.”
“the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the SSA's judgment is REVERSED and REMANDED.”
“the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Remand, ECF 12, is GRANTED. 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 summary judgment, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the SSA's judgment is REVERSED due to inadequate analysis and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1377 days (N = 1).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 24 days (N = 2).
Austin's sampled work includes criminal-duty matters and recently filed consent civil cases, many of which remained pending. His decided consent cases include Social Security appeals, employee-benefits litigation, and employment and wage disputes, including a case tried to a jury.
Put Judge Austin's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Austin actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Austin's own signed orders and cites them.