D. Brook Bartlett
How Judge Bartlett rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Bartlett no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Bartlett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Steffenhagen, Bartlett found that alleged facts showing deliberate indifference could defeat qualified immunity at the pretrial stage.
“a reasonable jury could find that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Mark’s constitutional right to be reasonably protected from attack from fellow inmates.”
Procedural preferences
In Financial Holding, Bartlett required a party seeking late amendment to justify changing the scheduling order before reaching the more permissive amendment standard.
“determining whether to grant leave to file an amended pleading requires a two-step analysis.”
Cautions
In O'Reilly, Bartlett distinguished the ordinary burden of later litigation from the legal prejudice needed to defeat voluntary dismissal.
“That the defendant will be subjected to a second suit is no bar to an order of dismissal without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is remanded to the bankruptcy court to reconsider its April 15, 1986, 61 B.R. 75, order in light of the district court order setting aside its earlier order holding the debtor-appellant in civil contempt.”
“Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is remanded to the bankruptcy court for explanation of those portions of the June 18, 1987, bankruptcy order denying debtors a discharge in bankruptcy based upon the debtors’ actions regarding corporate assets.”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant.”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that summary judgment is granted in favor of defendants.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs’ January 18, 1989, motion to dismiss without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is granted.”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1) defendant’s motion to remand is granted; 2) the Secretary is directed to hold promptly a supplemental hearing and to make a new disability determination consistent with the law of this Circuit;”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is denied.”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1) plaintiff’s Motion for Order Remanding Action to State Court is denied;”
“2) defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Notice of Removal is granted;”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1) plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted;”
“2) defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied;”
“3) the arbitration decision and award against plaintiff is vacated and will not be enforced.”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.”
“Because I am treating defendants' motion as one for dismissal rather than as one for summary judgment, the Motion to Stay Reconsideration will be denied.”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1) plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is granted because plaintiffs damages are less than $50,000 exclusive of interest and costs;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 293 days (N = 10).
A fixed-seed sample of ten terminated matters filed in 1998 included habeas, employment, product-liability, contract, statutory, and miscellaneous proceedings.
A historical record
Judge Bartlett 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.