Richard D. Bennett
How Judge Bennett rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Bennett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Baltimore County pension litigation, Bennett treated the agency's long delay and the resulting exposure to taxpayers and plan participants as central to denying retrospective monetary relief.
“The EEOC’s eight-year delay in prosecuting this case and its present position on the issue of damages are more than ‘troubl[ing]’ and are in fact untenable.”
Procedural preferences
In Hankins, Bennett remanded on comity and abstention grounds but declined sanctions because federal jurisdiction required substantial briefing and a hearing rather than presenting an obvious defect.
“In this case, the issue of this Court’s jurisdiction demanded several pleadings, the review of a large number of legal precedent and a motions hearing.”
At the pleading stage, he will not resolve qualified immunity for a defendant unless entitlement to the defense is clear from the face of the complaint.
“At this early stage, therefore, Det. Min has not shown that it is clear on the face of the Complaint that he is entitled to qualified immunity.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Counts One, Two, and Three, and DENIED with respect to Count Four.”
“Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.”
“For these reasons, the Motion will be denied without prejudice by separate Order.”
“Accordingly, the EEOC’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 215) is now MOOT.”
“the EEOC’s Motion for Determination on Availability of Retroactive and Prospective Monetary Relief (ECF No. 241) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the County’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply (ECF No. 245) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the County’s Motion for Leave to File Third Party Complaint (ECF No. 221) is now MOOT.”
“Defendant Levering’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 5) and Defendant Hartman’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 22) are GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff Xerox Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.”
“Motion to Dismiss of the Defendants (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that this Dismissal be WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) is DENIED”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants, having properly raised the exhaustion defense, are entitled to summary judgment in their favor”
“Motion for Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 141) filed by Redner’s is GRANTED.”
“Defendant RI Hispanic’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Lee N. Koehler’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31) and Plaintiff Brian G. West’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34) are both DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 199 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 1 days (N = 1).
The sampled matters include habeas and mandamus petitions, consumer-credit litigation, a franchise contract dispute, personal injury, and newly filed matters without a coded nature of suit. Five cases were terminated and five remained pending at the time of review.
Draft for Judge Bennett with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bennett, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bennett's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace