Mark Allan Goldsmith
How Judge Goldsmith rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Goldsmith
Mark Allan Goldsmith is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Goldsmith received a commission on June 22, 2010.
Judge Goldsmith's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Goldsmith, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Practice Guidelines ↗
- Case Management and Scheduling Order ↗
- Exhibit List Form For Trial ↗
- Default Protective Order ↗
- Model Rule 26(f) Report and Proposed Scheduling Order ↗
- Notice and Order Setting Scheduling Conference in a Patent Infringement Case ↗
- Timeline of Model Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Upon removal from state court, the parties shall file with the Court — as separate docket entries — all answers, amended pleadings, responsive pleadings, pending motions, and responses/replies to those motions that were originally filed in state court.
“Upon removal from state court, the parties shall file with the Court — as separate docket entries — all answers, amended pleadings, responsive pleadings, pending motions, and responses/replies to those motions that were originally filed in state court.”
Motions
Requests to file an oversized brief must be made by motion, in which the moving party sets forth specific reasons justifying the need for additional pages.
“Requests to file an oversized brief must be made by motion, in which the moving party sets forth specific reasons justifying the need for additional pages.”
Sealing
A party shall not file or otherwise tender to the Clerk any item proposed for sealing unless the Court has granted the motion or entered the proposed stipulated order required by this section.
“A party shall not file or otherwise tender to the Clerk any item proposed for sealing unless the Court has granted the motion or entered the proposed stipulated order required by this section.”
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 8, 2026).
- Procedures for Access, Service, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Procedures for the Filing, Service and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order for Discovery and Inspection and Fixing Motion Cut-Off Date in Criminal Cases ↗
- Pro Se Filings (Revised & Amended) ↗
- Filing a New Civil Case or Civil Initiating Papers Under Seal ↗
How Judge Goldsmith decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a franchise dispute, signed attachments and performance tied to the main agreement can plausibly show intent to be bound even when a principal did not sign the agreement itself; the complaint survived challenges to jurisdiction, the statute of frauds, and contract formation.
“These facts are sufficient, at the motion to dismiss stage, for Sizzling Black Rock to have successfully alleged that the Strems Defendants manifest[ed] an intent to be bound by the franchise agreement.”
He enforced a title-insurance exclusion where the insured deliberately failed to build or withdraw condominium units and therefore had the power to prevent the title defect; deliberate conduct, not merely negligence, defeated coverage.
“The loss of title was the direct result of Triple's deliberate acts. It knowingly failed to complete construction of the 14 units within the relevant 10-year period. And it failed to withdraw them from the project, as well. Its conduct falls comfortably within the plain and natural understanding of having created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to the defects of title.”
In Howard v. Collins, Goldsmith let a claim about withheld jailhouse-informant benefits proceed because the alleged benefits could impeach a prosecution witness. He treated the effect of that evidence on the verdict as a factual issue at the pleading stage.
“of a different outcome is a fact question that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.”
Procedural preferences
When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has reviewed it for clear error before adopting it. Specific, timely objections matter for obtaining fuller review.
“The failure to file a timely objection to an R&R constitutes a waiver of the right to further judicial review. ... Therefore, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error. On the face of the record, the Court finds no clear error and accepts the recommendation.”
In Hamilton's Social Security appeal, Goldsmith granted the claimant's summary-judgment motion in part by ordering remand, while denying her request for an outright award of benefits.
“Because the magistrate judge recommends remanding the case, the Court construes the magistrate judge's recommendation that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as a recommendation that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion.”
Cautions
In Beacon Navigation v. BMW, Goldsmith granted summary judgment of noninfringement and declined to reach BMW's alternative grounds. The related expert motions became moot.
“Having found that BMW is entitled to summary judgment on this ground, the Court need not reach the issues of whether BMW is entitled to summary judgment on the remaining grounds.”
In Brown v. FCA US LLC, he granted summary judgment on the employee's federal retaliation claim because she offered no evidence that the people who decided to terminate her knew of her earlier protected activity.
“Accordingly, Brown has offered no evidence to support the inference that the decisionmakers of her termination decision were aware of her protected activity prior to this litigation. Thus, Brown fails to establish a critical element of the prima facie case of retaliation.”
Temporal proximity alone may fail when an intervening workplace event gives the employer an independent reason to act; in an FLSA case, complaints about management style and an honest belief that the employee walked off the job defeated causation.
“Wilmoth has failed to provide any evidence that would dispel the inference that her termination decision was not motivated by her performance or conduct at work and instead related to her January 2023 conversation with Berry about overtime pay. Thus, she fails to meet the causation element necessary for a prima facie case of retaliation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 29) is granted in part. All claims against Evans and Ramelis are dismissed. All other claims are dismissed apart from Gooding’s excessive force and state law assault and battery claims against Stephen Ennis, Brian Otto, Smith, and the Doe Defendants.”
“Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 46).”
“For the reasons stated in this opinion and order, the Court will GRANT BMW’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.”
“the Court finds that the issues of whether exclusion of Macartney’s testimony regarding damages and Dafesh’s testimony regarding infringement is warranted are moot. Accordingly, the Court will DENY BMW’s pending Daubert motions as moot.”
“grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 13) to the extent it seeks remand but denies Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it seeks a reversal of the Commissioner’s decision and an award of benefits; and, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), remands this case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.”
“the Court adopts the R&R (Dkt. 18); denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 16)”
“Accordingly, Dobronski’s motion to dismiss counterclaim number 11 is denied.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Highflyer’s motion to dismiss in its entirely (Dkt. 33).”
“The Court grants in part and denies in part Encova’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 50). Within 14 days, the parties must submit a proposed judgment through which the case will be closed.”
“the Court ... adopts the 10/20/25 R&R, and grants Wellpath’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 67). The case is dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court (i) grants First American's motions for summary judgment (Dkt. 27) and (ii) denies Triple's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 29).”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies the Strems Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety (Dkt. 42).”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court (i) grants FCA's motion for summary judgment with respect to Brown's claims under Title VII and (ii) dismisses without prejudice Brown's claims under ELCRA.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed 2021-2024 matters reflect a broad civil docket and substantial criminal and duty assignments. They include False Claims Act, prisoner civil-rights, felony, Social Security, and patent cases, along with many warrant and miscellaneous applications that are not treated as merits cases. The mix is descriptive rather than a complete caseload count.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, not for Judge Goldsmith: 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 | 2,926 | 8.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 410 | 2.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,246 | 4.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,252 | 15.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 18 | 35.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,926 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,615 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,616 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,541 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,405 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,677 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,237 | 8.6 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 Goldsmith with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Goldsmith, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Goldsmith's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace