Matthew Frederick Leitman
How Judge Leitman rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Leitman
Matthew Frederick Leitman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Leitman received a commission on March 14, 2014.
Judge Leitman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Leitman, 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 ↗
- Sample Order to Attend Scheduling Conference and Notice of Requirements for Submission of Discovery Plan ↗
- Sample Case Management Requirements and Scheduling Order ↗
- Sample Criminal Trial Notice and Scheduling Order ↗
- Sample Scheduling Order for Preliminary Injuction Motion ↗
Key rules
Filing
Courtesy copies are required for all dispositive motions, responses, and replies.
“Courtesy copies are required for all dispositive motions, responses, and replies.”
Filing
Along with the courtesy copy, the filing party should provide the Court copies of (1) the main cases and other authority that support its legal position(s) (boilerplate legal authority is not required) and (2) all exhibits to the motion or response.
“Along with the courtesy copy, the filing party should provide the Court copies of (1) the main cases and other authority that support its legal position(s) (boilerplate legal authority is not required) and (2) all exhibits to the motion or response.”
Sealing
Whenever a motion or stipulation to seal is filed, the party seeking to file under seal shall submit a proposed order which states the particular reason the seal is required.
“Whenever a motion or stipulation to seal is filed, the party seeking to file under seal shall submit a proposed order which states the particular reason the seal is required.”
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 Leitman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In L & W’s automotive supply dispute, Leitman granted Sonora’s preliminary injunction after finding that the purchase orders remained effective and a supply interruption would cause irreparable harm.
“all of the applicable injunctive factors favor granting Sonora’s requested injunction.”
Procedural preferences
In Herron v. Balian, Leitman adopted an unopposed magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss for failure to serve. The order noted that failure to object waived further appellate review.
“The failure to file objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. ... Likewise, the failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).”
In H.G. v. Inter-Continental Hotels, Leitman allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint, then terminated the defendants' motions aimed at the earlier complaint as moot without prejudice.
“The Court entered an order on February 11, 2020, in which it provided H.G. an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint to address the purported defects in the Complaint. ... H.G. has now filed an Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ initial motions to dismiss.”
In Tianjin Motor Dies v. Dietech North America, Leitman reinstated the plaintiff's summary-judgment motion after earlier terminating it so the parties could focus on settlement talks. The reinstatement did not decide the motion's merits.
“On January 26, 2022, this Court issued an order administratively terminating Plaintiff’s pending motion to allow the parties to focus on settlement discussions. ... the Court has decided to reinstate Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.”
In Dassault Systemes, S.A. v. Childress, Leitman denied Childress's renewed reconsideration motion, finding that an earlier order had not addressed his fair-use defense and did not support his appellate-waiver argument.
“The Opinion and Order does not contain the words ‘fair use,’ and it does not mention that Childress raised that defense.”
Cautions
In Meier’s insurance dispute, Leitman warned the plaintiff that further meritless personal attacks on the magistrate judge could lead to sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice.
“The Court warns Meier that if he continues to lodge wholly-meritless personal attacks upon Magistrate Judge Grand, he (Meier) will be subject to sanctions, up to and including dismissal of his claims with prejudice.”
In a consolidated vehicle-defect case, Leitman denied a further amendment after plaintiffs received a deficiency letter and an opportunity to revise their complaint before dismissal briefing.
“This procedure allowed Plaintiffs a full opportunity to allege any and all facts in a First Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint that supported Plaintiffs’ claims and that could address GM’s bases for dismissal.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Balian’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Serve Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) (ECF #17) is GRANTED and (2) the claims against Balian are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ initial motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 10, 11).”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED to the extent that Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s unfair competition claim in Count VII of the Amended Complaint. ... That claim is DISMISSED. ... Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED in all other respects.”
“the recommended disposition of the R & R (ECF No. 32) is ADOPTED, and Meier’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's September 7, 2013, motion for summary judgment (ECF #9) is DENIED, and that Defendant's January 2, 2014, motion for summary judgment (ECF #12) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant New Wave’s Counterclaims (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED. The now-pending counterclaims are DISMISSED. New Wave may may file a properly supported motion to amend and add new counterclaims.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 61) is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to New Wave’s ability to file a subsequent motion seeking relief from the preliminary injunction.”
In a removed nonpayment-of-rent action already remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court denied a pro se defendant's later miscellaneous motion because the remand left the federal court without authority to grant relief: 'motion (ECF No. 10) is therefore DENIED.' The order was jurisdictional and did not address the merits.
After a hearing at which the parties placed their agreement on the record, the court entered a docket-management order: 'All pending motions and objections in this action (ECF Nos. 28, 29, 30) are TERMINATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.' The court did not decide the merits of any individual motion.
“E.L.H., Jr.’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks a remand for further administrative proceedings;”
“The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is DENIED;”
“(1) Colleen A.R.’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED;”
“(2) the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED;”
“For the reasons explained on the record during the motion hearing, both motions are DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated on the record, the motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed matters reflect a broad civil docket that includes trade-secret, trademark, consumer-protection, False Claims Act, Social Security, civil-rights, and trafficking-victim claims. His duty assignments also include many warrant and miscellaneous applications, which are not treated as merits cases.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 29 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 29 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 27 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 22 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 21 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 25 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 38 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 44 |
| Sep 2022 | 5 | 50 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 45 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 39 |
| Mar 2021 | 9 | 34 |
| Sep 2020 | 23 | 20 |
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 Leitman: 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 Leitman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Leitman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Leitman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace