Jennifer A. Dorsey

How Judge Dorsey rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Position
District judge
Appointed by
Barack Obama (Democratic)
Commissioned
July 9, 2013
Education
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (B.A., cum laude, 1994); Pepperdine University School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1997)
Signed orders read
26

About Judge Dorsey

Jennifer Anna Dorsey is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Dorsey received a commission on July 9, 2013.

How Judge Dorsey decides

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

What persuades

In Braxton v. Clark County School District, Dorsey adopted a screening remedy for a lawyer who had moved to the opposing law firm, rather than disqualifying the entire firm.

“The H&P Law Firm must continue to screen Fikisha Miller, Esq., from this case and she can be apportioned no part of any fee therefrom.”

In Apps, the songwriter’s copying claim failed at summary judgment because the evidence did not allow a reasonable jury to find that the defendant copied her work.

“Apps has not met her evidentiary burden, so I grant summary judgment in UMGI's favor.”

In Carrion, Dorsey granted postconviction relief when the remaining prior convictions no longer supported an enhanced sentence after the residual clause was invalidated.

“because Carrion has made that showing and his convictions no longer qualify for enhancement under the ACCA, I grant his motion.”

Procedural preferences

In Braxton v. Clark County School District, Dorsey adopted an unopposed magistrate judge recommendation on attorney disqualification after the objection deadline passed without an objection.

“the report and recommendation [ECF No. 80] is ADOPTED”

In Smith’s civil-rights suit, Dorsey denied a late request to add a defendant after finding that the plaintiff had information about that person before the amendment deadline but had not shown diligence.

“Given the information available to Smith before the deadline passed, the magistrate judge’s determination that Smith didn’t act diligently to learn more about Snapp’s involvement is not clearly erroneous.”

Cautions

In Braxton v. Clark County School District, she adopted a screening remedy for a lawyer who moved to the opposing firm and denied the plaintiff’s request for attorney fees.

“The motion is denied in all other respects, and plaintiff’s request for fees [ECF No. 67] is DENIED.”

In Magpiong, Dorsey enforced a separation agreement that released known and unknown employment claims and dismissed the subsequent suit with prejudice.

“I agree with Superdry, so I grant the motion and dismiss all of Magpiong's claims with prejudice.”

Signed rulings

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

Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC
377 F. Supp. 3d 1187 · 2019-03-28
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Summary Judgment [ECF No. 40] is GRANTED in part.”

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Michael
370 F. Supp. 3d 1177 · 2019-03-28
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“I also grant Caesars summary judgment on its fraud claim because the factual findings that resulted from my sanctions order establish all the elements of that claim.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“directly awarding damages to Caesars is appropriate ... But because Caesars seeks summary judgment on Michael's counterclaim for the $ 582,000 it has on hold ... I deny, for now, Caesars's claim to these funds but grant it leave to renew its motion.”

Dinkins v. Schinzel
362 F. Supp. 3d 916 · 2019-01-24
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“I grant both motions in part and deny them in part, and I order the parties to a mandatory settlement conference before a magistrate judge.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part
Kinzer v. Allegiant Air, LLC
215 F. Supp. 3d 1018 · 2016-06-01
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“Granting Motion to Remand and Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. LN Mgmt. LLC
369 F. Supp. 3d 1101 · 2019-03-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that LN Management LLC, Series 2937 Barboursville's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint [ECF No. 29] is GRANTED in Part and DENIED in Part. The claims by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and U.S. Bank LLC are DISMISSED with prejudice, but the claims by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, may proceed.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 31] is GRANTED in part; summary judgment is entered in favor of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation on its first and second causes of action.”

LHF Prods., Inc. v. Boughton
2:16-cv-01918 · 2017-10-23
Motion to sever (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims against defendants Gallego, Gyarfas, Templeton, and Walsh are SEVERED and DISMISSED from this case without prejudice to LHF's ability to bring these claims in new, separate actions.”

Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that LHF's motion for default judgment [ECF No. 55] is DENIED as moot with respect to Gallego, Gyarfas, Templeton, and Walsh and GRANTED with respect to Boughton.”

Motion for permanent injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“I decline to issue a permanent injunction against Boughton.”

Pasaye v. Dzurenda
375 F. Supp. 3d 1159 · 2019-03-22
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED. Defendants are enjoined from enforcing AR 810.3's lineage requirement against the plaintiff and must allow him to participate in the Native American ceremonies it allows for other Native American practitioners, including the sweat lodge, prayer circle, drum circle, smudging, sacred pipe, and access to the Native American grounds.”

Motion for temporary restraining order (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and motions for a decision [ECF Nos. 4, 17, 20] are DENIED as MOOT.”

Patel v. Dennett
389 F. Supp. 3d 888 · 2018-03-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Boe Dennett's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 22] is DENIED.”

Fernandez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
338 F. Supp. 3d 1193 · 2018-09-04
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fernandez's motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 20] is GRANTED”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“her motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 19] is DENIED”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“State Farm's motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. I grant summary judgment in favor of Fernandez on her first cause of action for declaratory relief, and for State Farm on Fernandez's fifth, sixth, and seventh claims for violations of the Nevada Administrative Code, and on her prayer for punitive damages.”

United States v. Akel
388 F. Supp. 3d 1248 · 2019-07-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 125] is DENIED.”

Motion to modify sentence (defendant) Moot / procedural

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Akel's original § 2255 petition [ECF No. 121] is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Universal N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Colosi
322 F. Supp. 3d 1071 · 2018-03-27
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Universal's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED, and the Colosis' motion for partial summary judgment, or in the alternative, to stay proceedings [ECF No. 39] is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the Colosis' motion for partial summary judgment, or in the alternative, to stay proceedings [ECF No. 39] is DENIED.”

Zervas v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co.
370 F. Supp. 3d 1169 · 2019-02-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“USAA's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 14] is DENIED;”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Zervas's motion for leave to amend her complaint [ECF No. 45] is GRANTED. Zervas has ten days to file her amended complaint in the form proposed at ECF No. 45.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

A separate recent snapshot contains many 2026 immigration detention petitions and other pending civil matters. The older completed-case review spans six matters filed in early 2017, including contract, consumer, civil rights, and real-property disputes. These narrow slices do not establish the judge’s overall caseload mix.

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 months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months3
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years16
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 2026016
Sep 2025011
Mar 2025113
Sep 2024014
Mar 202409
Sep 2023019
Mar 2023023
Sep 2022025
Mar 2022336
Sep 2021235
Mar 2021442
Sep 2020644

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 United States District Court for the District of Nevada, not for Judge Dorsey: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed2,1008 months
Closed with no court action2905.4 months
Closed before pretrial1,7698.4 months
Closed during or after pretrial288 months
Closed during trial1362 months
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20252,1008 months
Sep 20242,1778.5 months
Sep 20232,0008.4 months
Sep 20222,0308.8 months
Sep 20212,2918.6 months
Sep 20202,39210.4 months
Sep 20192,67911.5 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 Dorsey with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dorsey, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Dorsey's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace