F.A. Gossett III

United States District Court for the District of Nebraska magistrate 4 signed orders read

How Judge III decides

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

What persuades

In the ERISA benefits case (Monnier) Gossett resolved cross-motions for summary judgment on the administrative record in the claimant's favor and then awarded attorney's fees under 29 U.S.C. 1132(g). Practical lesson: in ERISA matters before him expect a record-based cross-MSJ disposition followed by a fees motion if the claimant prevails.

“ORDER granting 38 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 39 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(g), plaintiff may file a Motion for Attorney Fees.”

Procedural preferences

Gossett actively manages summary-judgment timing and ripeness: in Brizendine he set a firm response deadline and a date the MSJ would be 'deemed ripe for decision', and in Monnier he issued a briefing-schedule order setting a single cross-MSJ deadline with NECivR 56.1/7.0.1 briefing windows. Counsel before him should expect court-set SJ briefing schedules and strict ripeness dates.

“All parties are given until 7/20/2009 to file cross-motions for summary judgment and briefs in support thereof. Responses to the summary judgment motions shall be filed within 20 calendar days of service, as provided in NECivR 56.1(b)(2).”

Motion outcomes

Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.

Summary judgment
N = 5
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 3 counts only

A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.

Signed rulings

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

Brizendine v. City of Omaha
8:07-cv-00277 · 2008-09-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 19 is denied as moot as to these defendants. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 19 is denied as to the City of Omaha and Omaha Police Officer Frank Platt, individually and in his official capacity.”

Brizendine v. City of Omaha
8:07-cv-00277 · 2009-10-09
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 78 Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted as to plaintiff's state law claims and denied in all other respects.”

Mann v. Mobile Media Enterprises
8:07-cv-00479 · 2010-05-07
Summary judgment (unspecified) Denied

“MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 76 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F. A. Gossett.”

Monnier v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance
8:08-cv-00491 · 2010-02-11
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDER granting 38 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 39 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1132(g), plaintiff may file a Motion for Attorney Fees.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“ORDER granting 38 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 39 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 97 days (N = 17).

Sample of 20 dockets that docket lists with F. A. Gossett III as assigned judge, filed 2005-2015. Consumer-credit (FDCPA) and government-collection (student-loan/tax/forfeiture) matters dominate and terminate fast; contested civil cases (the consent SJ cases) run far longer.