Janet Theresa Neff
Judge Neff no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Neff decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an employment-discrimination case built on a workforce-reduction termination, she required the plaintiff to identify a truly comparable co-worker -- same duties, skills, and responsibilities -- not merely a shared supervisor or work area, before letting a discrimination claim reach a jury.
“Considering the job titles, responsibilities, requirements, and performance of the Warehouse Department at Defendant's Albion facility, the Court agrees with Defendant and finds Plaintiff failed to show the fourth element of her prima facie case.”
She enforces an unambiguous contractual anti-assignment or similar boilerplate clause as written, even against a sympathetic assignee such as a treating hospital seeking payment, rather than reading in an implied health-care-provider exception.
“The anti-assignment provision is this case is both unambiguous and enforceable. This Court is not persuaded that the absence of a reference to 'health care providers' in the anti-assignment clause at bar renders the clause ambiguous.”
On a challenge to diversity jurisdiction, she counted a contractual attorney's-fee provision toward the amount in controversy, following the majority rule that contract-based fees (not just statutory fees) count -- a plaintiff resisting dismissal can lean on that provision to clear the jurisdictional threshold.
“R & D contends that Williamson constitutes binding authority for the proposition that attorneys fees provided by contract are included in the amount in controversy... Murk cites no authority or persuasive reasoning to reject this majority rule.”
Procedural preferences
She insists that a magistrate judge's report and recommendation actually engage with a timely-filed response before she will adopt it, and will reject and re-open briefing rather than adopt a recommendation that overlooked a party's filing.
“Plaintiff's objections have merit inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge did not consider his response in her Report and Recommendation on Defendant Torrey's motion. Accordingly, this Court will grant the objections and reject the Report and Recommendation.”
Where both personal jurisdiction and removal timeliness are disputed, she resolves the removal/subject-matter question first as a matter of course, deferring to the state court on any personal-jurisdiction dispute rather than reaching it herself.
“Accordingly, this Court first turns to plaintiff's Motion to Remand... Having determined that this Court does not have removal jurisdiction over this matter, it is unnecessary for this Court to also resolve whether this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant.”
Cautions
On a compassionate-release motion, the COVID-19 pandemic alone -- without a shown unusual medical vulnerability -- will not satisfy the extraordinary-and-compelling standard, even where the defendant has other health conditions and is older.
“The pandemic itself is not considered an extraordinary and compelling reason 'absent extenuating circumstances.' Defendant has not shown any extenuating circumstances because there is no evidence that he suffers any unusual medical risk or vulnerability to the virus.”
A state-law claim over commercial email or similar conduct will be found preempted by a federal statute with an express preemption clause unless the state statute itself sets a materiality (falsity-or-deception) standard -- a bare technical-violation theory will not survive.
“Michigan's 'Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail Protection Act' differs markedly from the California statute... none of the terms of the Michigan Act explicitly addresses claims of falsity or deception. The technical violations regarding header, sender, and opt-out information that Plaintiff alleges as violations of the Michigan statute are not allegations of materially deceptive actions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Jennett’s Motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 8, 20, & 25) are GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Progressive’s Motion for More Definite Statement (ECF No. 5) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court grants defendants summary judgment of plaintiff’s complaint.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16 & 29) are GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 93) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 95) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 57) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 82) is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“The Court grants plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt 14) and consequently declines to decide the merits of defendant’s “Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction” (Dkt 33).”
“Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt 4) is denied on the grounds that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under CAN-SPAM, which expressly preempts Plaintiff’s claims.”
“Upon review, this Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. A certificate of appealability will therefore be denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 1) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF No. 40) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 41) are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Her 2018 filing-year caseload was a mix of prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters referred to a magistrate judge, employment and FLSA wage cases, consumer credit-reporting suits, a state-brought RICO case against opioid manufacturers (transferred to the national opiate multidistrict litigation within weeks), an ADA/transit case, and a state environmental enforcement action over PFAS groundwater contamination. Her 2021-2024 sample is weighted toward Section 2255 motions to vacate a federal sentence and criminal cases, consistent with a senior judge's reduced but still-active docket in her final years before taking inactive status.
A historical record
Judge Neff no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.