William G. Cambridge
How Judge Cambridge decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He enforces a written release/settlement to dispose of claims at summary judgment: where a plaintiff executed a valid, jointly-drafted release of her civil-rights claims, he adopted the magistrate's recommendation, held the claims barred, and granted summary judgment. A plaintiff who has signed a release should expect it to be given full effect; a defendant should foreground the release early.
“the defendants' motion for summary judgment (filing 30) is granted; and ... this action is dismissed with prejudice.”
In duplicative parallel litigation he applies the Eighth Circuit 'first-filed' rule and will dismiss a later-filed (even if first-served) declaratory-judgment action in favor of the forum where suit was first filed, absent compelling circumstances -- weighing witness convenience and the further-developed docket. A party racing to a preferred forum by filing a declaratory action elsewhere should expect dismissal.
“THIS MATTER IS before the Court on the defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (filing no. 3). The Court finds that the motion should be granted.”
Procedural preferences
He will treat a Rule 12(c) motion as exactly that rather than converting it to summary judgment even when the movant has submitted affidavits, deciding the legal question on the pleadings where the dispositive issue (here, statutory garnishee discharge) is purely legal. Counsel should be ready to win or lose a 12(c) on the law, not assume conversion and a further evidentiary round.
“The defendants have submitted additional evidence in the form of numerous affidavits and the parties have stipulated that if the Court treats the motion as one for summary judgment the plaintiff may also submit additional evidence ... The Court finds that this is unnecessary and will rule on the motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
Cautions
In employment-discrimination cases he recites that summary judgment 'should be sparingly used' but will still grant it where the plaintiff offers no evidence of discriminatory animus tied to the actual decision-makers (stray remarks by non-decision-makers do not suffice). A Title VII plaintiff must connect the alleged animus to whoever made the challenged decision.
“This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment (filing 72). ... the Court finds that the motion should be granted.”
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 = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for judgment on pleadings N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | 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.
“THIS MATTER IS before the Court on the defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (filing no. 3). The Court finds that the motion should be granted.”
“the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and for joinder of an indispensable party, (filing no. 22), is granted; ... this action is dismissed.”
“the defendants' motion for summary judgment (filing 30) is granted; and ... this action is dismissed with prejudice.”
“This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment (filing 72). After carefully considering the pleadings, Defendant's brief and evidence, and the [case] law, the Court finds that the motion should be granted.”
Judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying Social Security disability benefits to a claimant with cauda equina syndrome. This is a review of an agency decision, not a ruling on a party motion, so it is recorded as an order read but EXCLUDED from motion stats (motions: []). Outcome: the Court AFFIRMED the Secretary (substantial evidence supported the ALJ's non-disability finding), i.e., the claimant's challenge failed. Signer: 'CAMBRIDGE, District Judge.' get_case judges='Cambridge'. Source: docket records opinion 8722883.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample of 10 terminated dockets from search_dockets(assigned_judge='William G. Cambridge') -- his late-career (1998-2000) cases. A small, late-tenure slice (he retired 2000-07-11), NOT a tenure-wide caseload. Nature-of-suit mix is broad federal-trial-court fare: personal-injury (motor vehicle), employment civil rights, insurance, contract, copyright, recovery of student loans, prisoner 2255, and a drug-related civil forfeiture, plus a criminal case.