Cheryl Renae Zwart

United States District Court for the District of Nebraska magistrate 13 signed orders read

How Judge Zwart decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Zwart enforces standard-form arbitration clauses against commercial purchasers on a contract-formation theory: the seller's pre-season terms-and-conditions sheet plus the clause printed on the product (and incorporated by the invoice) form the contract, and a buyer is bound even if he did not read or sign it. Counsel resisting arbitration before her needs RECORD EVIDENCE that a particular plaintiff/assignor was NOT party to the purchase contract -- she split the Wojtalewicz claims on exactly that evidentiary line, compelling the named purchaser's claims while ordering limited discovery on the assignors'.

“But as to Kendra Wojtalewicz' claim and the claims assigned ... the court found no evidence of record explaining how these parties could be bound by an arbitration clause in a contract to purchase Pioneer seed corn ... The court permitted the parties to engage in limited discovery on this issue.”

On FIRREA venue, Zwart follows the line of authority reading 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(6)(A)'s parenthetical ('or continue an action commenced before the appointment of a receiver') as an ELABORATION of, not an exception to, the venue limitation -- so even a pre-receivership case must be transferred to D.C. or the federal court where the failed institution's principal place of business sits. A plaintiff opposing FDIC transfer on 'injustice'/dismissal grounds is answered that the question is venue, not subject-matter jurisdiction.

“the parenthetical was intended to elaborate on the venue restriction within the statute, and was not to be read as an except[ion]”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Adams Bank & Trust v. FirsTier Bank
836 F. Supp. 2d 929 (D. Neb.) · 2011-12-23
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion to change venue is *930granted and the plaintiffs motion to determine proper parties is denied.”

Motion to determine proper parties (plaintiff) Denied
Wojtalewicz v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (second arbitration order)
959 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Neb.) · 2013-01-23
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“The defendant has moved for an order staying this litigation and compelling arbitration of the claims of Kendra Wojtalewicz and the claims assigned to the plaintiffs ... For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted.”

Wojtalewicz v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (first arbitration order)
939 F. Supp. 2d 965 (D. Neb.) · 2012-07-09
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted in part

“The defendant has filed a Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration, (filing no. 10), and a Motion to Stay Discovery and Scheduling Activities, (filing no. 12). ... As explained below, the defendants' motions will be granted in part as set forth in this memorandum and order.”

Motion to stay discovery (defendant) Granted in part
United States v. Aaron C. Collins
4:17-cr-03116 · 2018-03-09
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“IT THEREFORE HEREBY IS RECOMMENDED to the Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), that the motion to suppress filed by the defendant (Filing No. 20) be denied in its entirety.”

United States v. Edward R. Hansen
4:18-cr-03140 · 2019-01-15
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“IT THEREFORE HEREBY IS RECOMMENDED to the Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), that the motion to suppress filed by the defendant (Filing No. 20) be denied in its entirety.”

Thomas v. McDonald
8:15-cv-00213 · 2016-03-25
Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant's Motion to Strike, (filing no. 21), is granted. 2) Plaintiff's Reply, (filing no. 20), is stricken from the record.”

Estate of Joyce Rosamond Petersen v. Bitters, et al.
8:16-cv-00183 · 2018-03-22
Motion for extension of time (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion, (Filing No. 186), is denied.”

Infogroup Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc.
8:20-cv-00109 · 2021-10-29
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff’s motion to compel specialized discovery is granted in part,”

Motions to stay (plaintiff) Granted in part

“both the motion to compel and the motion to stay will be granted in part, and denied in part, as stated below.”

Infogroup Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc.
8:20-cv-00109 · 2022-10-19
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Infogroup’s motion to compel and for limited relief from the close of discovery (Filing No. 172) is granted in part and in part denied as moot,”

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ameritas Life Insurance Corp.
4:21-cv-03118 · 2023-12-08
Motions to compel (defendant) Granted

“Ameritas’ motion to compel will be granted, Wells Fargo’s motion to compel will be granted in part, and the parties’ motion to modify the case progression schedule will be granted.”

Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part
Schmitt v. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik, LLP
8:21-cv-00011 · 2021-10-15
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration will be granted.”

Atwood v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
8:21-cv-00394 · 2022-12-12
Motion for protective order (defendant) Granted

“UPRR’s motion for protective order will be granted, and Plaintiff’s motion to strike will be denied.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 652 days (N = 5).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 81 days (N = 3).

The 21 sampled consent civil cases include employment and disability claims, personal-injury and motor-vehicle disputes, railroad-injury cases, Social Security appeals, trademark litigation, and civil forfeiture. All 21 sampled cases had terminated; the sample is not a complete account of her caseload.

Put Judge Zwart's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Zwart actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Zwart's own signed orders and cites them.