Hala Yalda Jarbou
How Judge Jarbou rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Jarbou
Hala Yalda Jarbou is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Jarbou received a commission on September 23, 2020.
Judge Jarbou's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Jarbou, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Telephone chambers when filing an emergency motion, including a temporary restraining order.
“Parties filing emergency motions, including temporary restraining orders, should telephone chambers at or before the time of filing to give notice to the Court.”
Motions
File motions in limine by the case-management deadline or at least 21 days before the final pretrial conference.
“Motions in limine must be filed by the deadline set forth in the case management order, or no later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the final pretrial conference.”
Conferences
Request adjournments by formal motion or stipulation.
“All adjournment requests must come by either formal motion or stipulation.”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Jarbou decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an FDCPA motion to dismiss, Jarbou closely followed recent, on-point Sixth Circuit precedent addressing the same subrogation-style debt-collection fact pattern and applied it directly rather than distinguishing it on thin grounds.
“In light of Jamison, the money SSB sought to recover for a tort-based claim does not fall within the FDCPA's definition of a 'debt.'”
In Palmer, Jarbou denied a trade-secret preliminary injunction because the employer had not shown irreparable harm, even though she found likely success on the merits.
“However, because Silvur has not shown it will suffer irreparable harm from Palmer’s attorney being in possession of its confidential customer information, the Court denies its motion for preliminary injunctive relief.”
Procedural preferences
In Dykes v. Orsbourne, Jarbou adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part and rejected it in part, allowing one retaliation claim to proceed while granting summary judgment on the other claims.
“IT IS ORDERED that the report and recommendation (‘R&R’) of the magistrate judge (ECF No. 53) is ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART as the opinion of the Court.”
In Hardy v. Lansing Police Department, Jarbou overruled a pro se plaintiff’s nonspecific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied his fourth request for appointed counsel.
“This terse statement fails to ‘specifically identify the portions’ of the R&R to which Hardy objects and fails to provide any legal basis for doing so.”
Cautions
In Bell v. Schroeder, Jarbou found that the magistrate judge had improperly credited defendants’ testimony over the plaintiff’s at summary judgment, but granted the defendants’ motion because the plaintiff’s evidence still failed to establish their awareness of a substantial risk.
“It was error to credit Defendants' testimony over that of Plaintiff, and the Court departs from the R&R to the extent it does so.”
In Turner v. St. Joseph Public Schools, Jarbou ordered the plaintiff’s attorney to show cause why Rule 11 sanctions were unwarranted after finding a conflict between complaint allegations and the client’s deposition testimony.
“The Court will order Aikens to show cause as to why sanctions under Rule 11 are not appropriate.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated above, the Court will dismiss the FDCPA claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Court further declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the MCPA claim.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is DENIED insofar as it relates to Dykes-Bey's retaliation claim related to his unit porter job and GRANTED for all other claims.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Sanborn, Jaramillo, Barber, and Bonn's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 57) is DENIED.”
“The Court concludes that Defendant is entitled to relief with respect to ground I, and his § 2255 motion will be granted with respect to that ground. The Court further concludes that the appropriate remedy is to conduct a full resentencing with respect to Defendant's mail fraud conviction.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.”
“CPM's motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied.”
A state homicide and manslaughter prosecution against a Michigan State Police detective sergeant deputized to a federal fugitive task force, removed to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, after a fatal vehicle pursuit. Following an evidentiary hearing, the judge held that the officer met all elements for removal—a federal officer acting under color of federal office with a colorable Supremacy Clause immunity defense—and declined to abstain under Younger. This procedural ruling addressed the permissibility of removal rather than a party motion on the merits.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Robbins's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court is not persuaded that the officers violated Risper's Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, the Court will deny the motion to suppress evidence.”
A state prisoner's Section 1983 civil-rights suit, one of sixteen severed from a joint multi-plaintiff complaint. On PLRA-mandated initial screening, the judge dismissed several defendants and claims—RICO, due process, equal protection, retaliation, and most ADA claims—for failure to state a claim while allowing Eighth Amendment and one ADA claim to proceed. This was a sua sponte statutory screening disposition rather than a ruling on a party motion.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The analyzed dockets include civil rights, commercial, and other civil matters filed from 2020 through 2024. The selected cases provide motion outcomes and timing, but do not support an estimate of the full caseload mix.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 7 |
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 United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not for Judge Jarbou: 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 | 1,042 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 107 | 2.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 714 | 6.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 217 | 14.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,042 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 906 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 847 | 6.1 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,033 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,081 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 844 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 893 | 7.8 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 Jarbou with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jarbou, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jarbou's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace