E. Richard Webber
How Judge Webber decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On retroactivity, he looks past how a statutory amendment is labeled and asks whether it actually impairs a vested right. A 'definitional' or seemingly procedural change that in practice eliminates an entire avenue of liability is substantive and will not be applied retrospectively.
“this Court will not find the 2017 amendment to the statute constituted a mere procedural amendment solely on the basis that it was largely a definitional change. ... while on its face, the amended version of the statute appears to only add a simple clarification, in practice, the change effectively eliminated the liability of an entire entity.”
Federal-officer removal: he applies a deliberately low bar -- a federal officer need only raise a 'colorable' federal defense (here judicial immunity) for an act under color of office, and pleading defects in the notice of removal are curable rather than grounds to remand.
“An officer's federal defense need be only colorable to assure the federal court that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case[.] ... Judge Rendlen has met his burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction, because he is a federal officer and has adequately pled the federal defense of judicial immunity.”
Procedural preferences
He enforces Local Rule 7-4.01(E) strictly: a summary-judgment opponent whose responses lack the particularity required by Rule 56(c)(1)(A) (or cite inadmissible evidence) will have the movant's statement of facts deemed admitted, and he will not draw inferences for the nonmovant.
“City is correct that Plaintiff's denials and factual statements lack the particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), and refer to inadmissible evidence. Nevertheless, even assuming ... Plaintiff's Response fails to set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Cautions
Once the federal claim drops out early, he readily declines supplemental jurisdiction and remands the remaining state-law claims, resolving doubts about removal in favor of remand.
“When the balance of these factors indicates that a case properly belongs in state court, as when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Missouri Baptist Hospital of Sullivan's Motion for Summary Judgment [42] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 3] is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Elbert A. Walton, Jr.'s First Amended Motion to Remand Case to State Court [ECF No. 6] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #16] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the Case Management Order to Allow Plaintiff to Name an Expert Witness [doc. #24] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to permit Plaintiff to Withdraw Certain Admissions [doc. #23] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. #87] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony [58] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This Court grants Defendants' request to exclude expert witnesses from testifying as to whether, during the time of the accident, the subject Toyota 4Runner was in the same or substantially similar condition as when it was first sold. This Court denies Defendants' request to exclude testimony by Plaintiffs' expert witnesses opining that the rollover crash was caused by an alleged design defect.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [doc. #10] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions [doc. #46] and Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees [doc. #66] are GRANTED, in part. Guardian shall pay $6,213.66 to Plaintiffs as a sanction for its delay in responding to Plaintiffs' discovery requests.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Sanctions [doc. 91] is DENIED at this time. Plaintiff shall have until Friday June 22, 2007 at 12:00 p.m. (noon) to submit stipulations and a complete set of jury instructions.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for a Directed Verdict as to Count V [doc. #95] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Close Proceedings [doc. #98] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Severance [doc. #61] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [doc. #19 oral motion; doc. #64 documentary motion] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions for class certification [Doc. #2] and for appointment of process server [Doc. #4] are DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 535 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 55 days (N = 2).
Senior District Judge since 2009. His assigned docket is dominated by short administrative miscellaneous matters (union and benefit-fund and bank-garnishment registrations, often terminated the same day) and fast prisoner § 2255 dismissals; his substantive civil work (§ 1983, medical malpractice, complex RICO) appears in older, longer-running cases.
Put Judge Webber's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Webber actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Webber's own signed orders and cites them.