Nancy Ellen Brasel
How Judge Brasel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Brasel will not enforce a contractual ADR/mediation clause as a bar to litigation unless it unambiguously makes the ADR step a condition precedent to suit. She reads such clauses strictly because they 'would divest a party of the right to have a court hear its claims,' and an internally inconsistent clause ('shall initiate a voluntary' mediation) does not clear that bar. A defendant moving to dismiss for failure to mediate should be able to point to express, unambiguous condition-precedent language.
“A contractual condition precedent must be expressly and unambiguously stated. ... the mediation provision uses mandatory and non-mandatory language, stating that the parties 'shall initiate a voluntary' mediation. The provision therefore does not unambiguously require the executive meeting and mediation before a party sues.”
Brasel applies a forgiving standard to LLC diversity pleading and to the amount-in-controversy at the motion-to-dismiss stage: an LLC need only plead the citizenship (not the address) of its members, and the plaintiff's good-faith damages claim controls unless the defendant proves to a legal certainty that it is below the jurisdictional minimum. A defendant attacking diversity jurisdiction with hyper-technical pleading objections (rather than a real citizenship or amount dispute) should expect the motion to fail.
“Rule 8 requires a 'short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.' ... It does not require parties to plead a specific address. ... Focal Point offers no evidence to establish to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than $75,000.”
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion Brasel declines to consider documents (beyond those embraced by the pleadings) that would convert the motion into one for summary judgment, preferring to test only the complaint's plausibility and leave factual disputes for discovery. Counsel should not load a motion to dismiss with extrinsic evidence and expect the court to weigh it.
“The other documents are not fairly embraced by the pleadings and consideration of them would convert this motion to one for summary judgment. ... The Court declines to do so.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Focal Point, L.L.C.'s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED ; and ... This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] is DENIED;”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 16] is GRANTED; and ... This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is ACCEPTED; ... Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED; and ... The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED AS MOOT, the TRO motion [ECF No. 6] is DENIED, the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the TRO motion [ECF No. 6] is DENIED”
“the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant Linda Pantzki's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED; and ... This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Gutierrez's Objection (ECF No. 45) is OVERRULED; ... The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 44) is ACCEPTED; ... The Renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED; ... The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; ... The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and ... No certificate of appealability be issued.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 27] is GRANTED;”
“Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Experts Testimony [ECF No. 22] is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike Expert Declaration [ECF No. 47] is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“Polaris's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (ECF No. 371) is DENIED;”
“Polaris's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 356) is DENIED; and”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 332) is DENIED.”
“Progressive Preferred Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Declaratory Judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 108 days (N = 1).
The docket sample is limited to Mlazgar and therefore does not establish Brasel's full nature-of-suit mix or representative dispositive-motion timing. Her published orders span contract disputes, pro se civil rights, Social Security appeals, and Section 2254 habeas matters.
Put Judge Brasel's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Brasel actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Brasel's own signed orders and cites them.