Gina L. Simms

United States District Court for the District of Maryland magistrate 9 signed orders read

How Judge Simms decides

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

Procedural preferences

On default-judgment referrals she analyzes each count separately rather than granting wholesale, recommending default judgment on the counts that are adequately pleaded while denying it on others (for example, an unjust-enrichment count barred where an express contract governs), and she caps damages under Rule 54(c) to the amount pleaded and independently scrutinizes requested attorney's-fee rates.

“In sum, I respectfully recommend that the Court: (1) GRANT Plaintiff's ‘Motion for Default Judgment’ (ECF No. 14) as to Counts I and II; (2) DENY Plaintiff's Motion as to Count III”

Cautions

When dismissing for failure to prosecute or comply she calibrates the prejudice determination: she declines a with-prejudice dismissal unless the plaintiff first received an explicit, clear warning of that consequence, reserving the harshest sanction for egregious, repeated non-compliance.

“In sum, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ... this Court will not dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice because it has not provided her with an ‘explicit and clear warning of the consequences of failing to satisfy [this Court's orders].’”

Signed rulings

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

Trustees of the National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Lilly Timber Services, Inc.
8:23-cv-00433 · 2023-08-14
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“I ultimately recommend that Plaintiffs' ‘Motion for Default Judgment’ be GRANTED, and that damages be awarded as set forth herein.”

Hernandez v. Microfit Auto Parts, Inc.
8:19-cv-00984 · 2021-04-20
Settlement approval (joint) Granted

“I recommend that the district court GRANT AND APPROVE the ‘Joint Motion to Approve FLSA Settlement’ (ECF No. 85), and GRANT the ‘Joint Motion to Withdraw Acceptances of Offers of Judgment’ (ECF No. 86).”

United States v. Wright
8:24-cv-00026 · 2024-12-20
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“I respectfully recommend that the Court GRANT the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 11), and enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendant”

United States v. Freeman
8:20-cv-00710 · 2021-03-16
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“I ultimately recommend that Plaintiffs' ‘Motion for Entry of Default Judgment’ be GRANTED, and that damages be awarded as set forth herein.”

Aerotek, Inc. v. KES Energy Solutions, LLC d/b/a KES Electrical
8:22-cv-02191 · 2023-09-22
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“In sum, I respectfully recommend that the Court: (1) GRANT Plaintiff's ‘Motion for Default Judgment’ (ECF No. 14) as to Counts I and II; (2) DENY Plaintiff's Motion as to Count III”

Trustees of the National Electrical Benefit Fund v. TKG Solutions, Inc.
8:22-cv-01627 · 2023-07-31
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“In sum, I respectfully recommend that the Court, GRANT Plaintiffs' ‘Motion for Default Judgment’ against the Defendant. (ECF No. 24).”

Coles v. Suddath Van Lines, Inc.
8:20-cv-02840 · 2022-06-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“In sum, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ... this Court will not dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice because it has not provided her with an ‘explicit and clear warning of the consequences of failing to satisfy [this Court's orders].’”

Turcios-Arias v. Mio Mechanical Corporation
8:22-cv-02640 · 2024-07-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“In sum in light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motions to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 34, 37), and dismisses with prejudice all of Plaintiff's claims.”

Siguel v. King Farm Citizens Assembly, Inc.
8:22-cv-00672 · 2023-10-12
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, the Motions are GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART. The Motions are GRANTED with respect to the following, against all Defendants: (1) Count I; (2) Count II; (3) Count III; (4) Count IV; (5) Count V; (6) Count VI ...; (7) Count VII; (8) Count VIII; (9) Count IX; and (10) Count X”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 214 days (N = 1).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 136 days (N = 2).

Judge Simms's work includes consent civil and criminal-duty matters, ERISA and union benefit-fund collections, consumer and employment disputes, franchise contracts, and Social Security disability appeals. Her referral work includes ERISA and tax default judgments, FLSA collective settlements, and diversity contract cases. She also inherited consent cases involving wage settlements, diversity torts, products liability, and Fair Housing Act and ADA claims.

Put Judge Simms's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Simms actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Simms's own signed orders and cites them.