Catherine C. Eagles
How Judge Eagles rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Eagles
Catherine Caldwell Eagles is a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Eagles received a commission on December 22, 2010. Judge Eagles assumed senior status on December 31, 2024.
Judge Eagles's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Eagles, 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
Filing
Provide requested working copies to the Clerk’s Office within three business days.
“Working Copies: Not required unless requested by the Court. When requested, copies should be provided to the Clerk’s Office within 3 business days.”
Filing
In civil cases, use specific pin cites to record evidence and multi-page exhibits; unsupported factual assertions will be disregarded.
“factual assertions unsupported by citation to specific evidence in the record will be disregarded;”
Filing
Submit contemplated or court-requested proposed orders in Word format.
“Litigants should submit proposed orders contemplated by L.R. 5.3(f)(3) or requested by the Court in Word format.”
Motions
Do not expect routine extension requests to be granted; other legal work is not grounds for more time.
“parties should not expect motions for extensions of time to be granted. Scheduling Orders will not be modified merely because the parties so agree.”
Sealing
If more than five exhibits will be sealed without an existing Local Rule 5.5 order, file the required report before moving to seal or explain why that is infeasible.
“If more than five exhibits will be filed subject to a motion to seal and no L.R. 5.5 Order has been entered, the parties shall file a L.R. 5.5 Report in advance of filing a motion to seal or explain why compliance is impossible or infeasible.”
Sealing
Highlight in yellow the material proposed for sealing in the unredacted version filed under seal.
“When filing a motion to seal, the filing party shall, in the unredacted version filed under seal, highlight in yellow all of the information subject to the motion to seal”
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).
- Standing Order 10 — Issuance of Subpoenas to Pro Se Litigants ↗
- Standing Order 17 — Sealing of Medical Records Related to Compassionate Release Motions ↗
- Amended Standing Order 18 — Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order 20 — Criminal Case Management ↗
- Standing Order 32 — Criminal Cover Sheet ↗
- Standing Order 40 — Clerk Authority to Grant Certain Motions and Judgments ↗
- Amended Standing Order 41 — Sealed Documents ↗
How Judge Eagles decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a case involving a fintech cash-advance app's arbitration clause, the judge closely parses the actual screens a consumer clicked through, crediting language that explicitly tells the user that continuing constitutes agreement to terms placed directly above or below the action button, while distinguishing sites that bury or ambiguously label the assent step.
“The language on the screen 'explicitly advised that the act of clicking will constitute assent to the terms and conditions of an agreement.' ... EarnIn's 2022 sign-up screens allowed reasonably prudent internet users to know that they were agreeing to the Terms of Service when they followed the sign-up flow and created an account.”
On a patent-eligibility challenge, the judge follows Federal Circuit precedent closely by tracing whether the asserted claims 'begin and end' with a natural phenomenon, rejecting reliance on a favorably-drafted preamble or a patent examiner's earlier eligibility finding as not determinative.
“However artfully Natera drafted the preamble, the claims here are directed to detection of a natural phenomenon.”
Procedural preferences
In the standard order filed in Stark v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina Foundation, Eagles said ordinary briefing deadlines were adequate except in unusual circumstances and that counsel's other work did not justify an extension.
“The deadlines in the Local Rules provide adequate time for briefing in all but exceptional circumstances and parties should not expect motions for extension of time to be granted.... The Court expects the parties to promptly move the case towards final resolution.... The press of other legal work is not a valid basis for an extension of time...”
Confronted with duplicate multi-way disputes over lead-plaintiff and lead-counsel appointment in a securities class action, the judge proactively limits briefing to a single consolidated filing per side to prevent docket clutter, rather than letting each competing applicant respond separately to every other applicant.
“To prevent docket clutter, each of the four applicants for lead plaintiff/counsel may file one consolidated brief addressing the motions and applications of the other three and each is prohibited from filing separate responses as to each motion.”
In Gift Surplus, LLC v. State of North Carolina, Eagles converted the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion to one for a permanent injunction and the defendants’ dismissal motion to one for summary judgment, then denied the former and granted the latter.
“The plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 5, is converted to a motion for permanent injunction and DENIED. ... The defendants' motion to dismiss, Doc. 35, is converted to a motion for summary judgment and GRANTED.”
When defendants sought to seal body-camera video and medical records offered on summary judgment, the judge required a specific explanation of why secrecy was necessary and why narrower protection would fail; general privacy assertions were insufficient.
“motion to seal will be granted without a sufficient showing by the party claiming confidentiality as to why sealing is necessary and why less drastic alternatives will not afford adequate protection.”
Cautions
In the consolidated Musgrove cases, Eagles granted Rule 11 sanctions after finding that the prisoner knowingly misrepresented a lockdown to obtain extensions, and required sworn declarations with future extension requests.
“Whether it is called lying or making a knowing misrepresentation, making a statement to a court that the party knows is not true in order to obtain court action is a serious matter and subjects the offender to sanctions.”
In a construction-contract dispute stayed for arbitration, the judge dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute after it did almost nothing to move a consented-to arbitration forward despite repeated deadlines and an explicit order stating her expectations: underscoring that a stay for arbitration is not license to let a case sit dormant.
“A stay pending arbitration is not permission to sit on one's hands.”
In Teasley v. Tyler Technologies, Inc., Eagles struck the plaintiff’s unauthorized sur-reply on her own motion after finding that it offered no helpful argument and contained personal attacks on opposing counsel.
“The Court's Local Rules do not permit filing of a sur-reply brief without permission, and nothing in that paper writing is helpful. Moreover, she cites no law anywhere in the paper writing. Name-calling and personal attacks on counsel serve no purpose.”
The judge dismissed a case after repeated refusal to comply with discovery orders, earlier warnings, and a financial sanction, finding that lesser measures had failed.
“Despite the warnings and the sanction, Ms. Teasley did not comply with the court order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment, Doc. 55, is GRANTED.”
“Covil's motion to stay, Doc. 221, will be DENIED as moot.”
“Zurich and USF&G's motion for partial summary judgment, Doc. 211, is GRANTED in part on the allocation issue as applied to the Finch judgment, and a Declaratory Judgment will be entered separately as time permits. Zurich's declaratory judgment claims and USF&G's declaratory judgment cross-claims are otherwise DISMISSED without prejudice, as the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over these issues.”
“Covil's motion for summary judgment, Doc. 209, is DENIED in part on the allocation issue as applied to the Finch judgment. Covil's declaratory judgment claims are otherwise DISMISSED without prejudice, as the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction.”
“The individual defendants' motion for summary judgment, Doc. 214, is DENIED in part on the allocation issue as applied to the Finch judgment and is otherwise DENIED as moot, as the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining declaratory judgment issues.”
“It is ORDERED that the third-party defendant SiteMed North America, LLC's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, Doc. 29, is GRANTED and all claims against SiteMed North America, LLC are DISMISSED.”
“The City defendants' motion for leave to exceed word limitation, Doc. 47, is GRANTED.”
“The City defendants' motion to dismiss, Doc. 45, is GRANTED in part and the Sec. 1983 claims against Chief Cole, Lt. Velez, and Officer Franks in their official capacities for violating the plaintiffs' First and Fourth Amendment rights, Doc. 25 at paragraphs 175-82, are DISMISSED. ... the City defendants' motion to dismiss is otherwise DENIED as to the Drumwright complaint.”
“The County defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. 52, is DENIED.”
“It is ORDERED that the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, Doc. 47, is GRANTED. Upon Archer's dismissal of its counterclaim, see Doc. 15, judgment will be entered.”
“Mr. Hill's motion for partial summary judgment, Doc. 17, is DENIED.”
“Carvana and Bridgecrest's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, Doc. 22, is DENIED.”
“The plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 5, is converted to a motion for permanent injunction and DENIED.”
“The plaintiffs' oral motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“The defendants' motion to dismiss, Doc. 35, is converted to a motion for summary judgment and GRANTED.”
Sitting by designation in the Western District of Virginia, the judge imposed a pre-filing injunction on a serial pro se litigant who, over seven years, filed eight lawsuits and numerous frivolous motions against the same social-services agency, twice adding federal judges as defendants based on their rulings in his earlier cases. Applying the Fourth Circuit's Cromer factors (litigation history, good faith, burden on the courts, adequacy of lesser sanctions), the court found an injunction warranted after a prior warning went unheeded, and narrowly tailored it to bar future filings against the agency or arising from the same allegations, and against any judicial officer, lawyer, or witness based on their role in his past cases, without foreclosing his access to the courts entirely.
“The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, Doc. 93, is GRANTED in part as to the IUP provision, Sec. 90-21.83B(a)(7), and is otherwise DENIED.”
“The defendant-intervenors' cross-motion for summary judgment, Doc. 97, is GRANTED in part as to the hospitalization requirement, Sec. Sec. 90-21.81B(3), (4); Sec. 90-21.82A(c), and is otherwise DENIED.”
“It is ORDERED that the defendant's motion for compassionate release, Doc. 136, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. The defendant's motion for a sentence reduction, Doc. 136, is GRANTED, and his sentence is reduced to 314 months total ... 4. The defendant's request for oral argument is DENIED.”
“The defendants' motion for sanctions in Musgrove v. Bridges, 22-CV-311, Doc. 48, is GRANTED. ... The defendants' motion for sanctions in Musgrove v. Ishee, 22-CV-1125, Doc. 32, is GRANTED.”
“The plaintiff's 'Motion for leave to amend under F.R.C.P. 15' in Musgrove v. Ishee, 22-CV-1125, Doc. 35, is DENIED.”
“The defendant Tyler Technologies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, Doc. 9, is DENIED as to Ms. Teasley's claim for libel per se and GRANTED as to all other causes of action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted”
“The defendant Abigail Diaz's motion to dismiss, Doc. 11, is GRANTED and all claims against her are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Sampled cases span employment discrimination, prisoner habeas and civil-rights suits, insurance and contract disputes, securities and consumer class actions, patent and trademark claims, and product liability.
- Most docket entries are stub descriptions without attached order text, so outcomes are included only when a verbatim disposition is available.
- New assignments continued through July 2026 despite Eagles's senior status.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 10 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 8 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, not for Judge Eagles: 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 | 590 | 8.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 377 | 7.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 189 | 9.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 20 | 21 months |
| Closed during trial | 4 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 590 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 679 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 642 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 615 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 643 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 569 | 9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 615 | 11.4 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 Eagles with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Eagles, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Eagles's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace