Robert Clive Jones

United States District Court for the District of Nevada district Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 12 signed orders read

How Judge Jones decides

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

What persuades

Jones required competent, internally consistent evidence before treating an asserted mortgage transfer as established.

“Not only has Sullivan failed to attach the records his affidavit relies on, this discrepancy indicates that the records are themselves unreliable, that he has looked at the wrong records, or some other error or misstatement.”

He enforced the summary-judgment burden after the plaintiff had ample time but supplied no admissible evidence of a non-preempted manufacturing defect.

“Mr. Miller had ample time to find and present evidence, if any exists, to counter defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.”

He allowed a narrow quiet-title theory to survive despite rejecting the borrower's broader attack on the mortgage system.

“Plaintiff could obtain a much narrower declaration that her title to the Property is superior to that of one or more Defendants’.”

Procedural preferences

Jones treated sovereign immunity and required-party doctrine as dispositive even where the plaintiffs raised serious political concerns.

“an allegation does not create jurisdiction by its gravity where the nature of the allegation precludes it.”

He did not permit plaintiffs to revive claims lacking a private cause of action by relabeling statutory duties as contract terms.

“Plaintiffs may not seek double recovery or circumvent this Court’s prior rulings”

He refused case-ending spoliation sanctions against an individual defendant without personal culpability for the missing evidence.

“Plaintiff made no showing that this was the case.”

Cautions

Jones rejected negligent-supervision claims without physical harm under his prediction of Nevada law.

“that physical harm is necessary for a negligent retention and supervision claim in Nevada.”

He declined to merge negligence in contract performance into an expanded insurance bad-faith tort.

“allowing a contract-based tort claim premised on a defendant’s negligence in executing the contract would blur the line between contract and tort in a way that the Nevada Supreme Court has not done.”

He limited the federal damages ruling to a tribal officer enforcing tribal law against a tribal member on tribal land.

“The Court’s holding is limited to the particular context now before it.”

Signed rulings

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

Vega v. CTX Mortgage Co., LLC
· 2011-09-08
Motions to dismiss (CTX Mortgage, Matthews, and Bartosh) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41) and Motion for Relief from Order (ECF No. 42) are GRANTED.”

Motion for relief from order (CTX Mortgage, Matthews, and Bartosh) Granted
Vega v. CTX Mortgage Co., LLC
· 2011-01-19
Motions to dismiss (defendants filing ECF No. 20) Granted in part

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 20, 22) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All claims are dismissed except the claim for injunctive relief due to statutorily defective foreclosure.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants filing ECF No. 22) Granted in part
Miller v. DePuy Spine, Inc.
· 2009-05-01
Summary judgment (DePuy Spine) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED and that judgment for defendants DePuy Spine and JDA be entered.”

Summary judgment (JDA Surgical Associates) Granted
Wasson v. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
· 2011-02-25
Motions to dismiss (Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED.”

Motion to amend (plaintiffs, ECF No. 14) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Amend (ECF Nos. 14, 16, 24) are DENIED.”

Motion to amend (plaintiffs, ECF No. 16) Denied
Motion to amend (plaintiffs, ECF No. 24) Denied
Karl v. Quality Loan Service Corp.
· 2010-12-13
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (Quality Loan Service Corp.) Granted in part

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED in part and DENIED it in part. The motion is GRANTED as to all causes of action except declaratory judgment and quiet title.”

Clark K. v. Willden
· 2007-09-04
Motions to dismiss (state defendants) Granted

“For the reasons stated above and at oral argument, the Court grants State Defendants’ Motion to Partially Dismiss Amended Complaint.”

Motion for joinder (county defendants) Granted

“The Court further grants County Defendants’ Motion for Joinder.”

Brophy v. Day & Zimmermann Hawthorne Corp.
· 2011-07-05
Summary judgment (defendant against Shannon Brophy) Granted in part

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Shannon Brophy (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Her claims for gender-based hostile work environment and pregnancy discrimination may proceed.”

Summary judgment (defendant against Khristina Armstead) Granted in part

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Khristina Armstead (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Her claims for race-based hostile work environment, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation may proceed.”

Summary judgment (defendant against Michael Lightfoot) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Michael Lightfoot (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.”

Motion for leave to file excess pages (defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED.”

Insco v. Aetna Health & Life Insurance
· 2009-11-05
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted in part

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (# 14) is DENIED as to the First and Second Causes of Action and GRANTED as to the Third Cause of Action.”

Gypsum Resources, LLC v. Masto
· 2009-11-24
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (# 42) as to the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (defendants filing motion #43) Granted in part

“Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (# 43, # 44) as to the First Cause of Action are DENIED. Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (# 43, # 44) as to the Second Cause of Action are GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (defendants filing motion #44) Granted in part
Boney v. Valline
· 2009-01-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 52) is GRANTED.”

Peters v. Cox
· 2018-07-24
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 87) is DENIED.”

Weingartner v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
· 2010-03-15
Motion to dismiss or summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment, and to Expunge Lis Pendens (# 5) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All causes of action are dismissed except the causes of action for violations of FDCPA, Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief, and Negligence, as pled against Cooper. Chase is dismissed as a Defendant.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The 16 reviewed decisions cover varied litigation but do not establish the distribution of Jones's full caseload.

Put Judge Jones's record to work

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

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