Bridget Meehan Brennan

How Judge Brennan rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Position
district
Appointed by
Joe Biden (Democratic)
Commissioned
2022-02-08
Education
John Carroll University, B.A. (1997); Case Western Reserve University School of Law, J.D. (2000)
Signed orders read
29

How Judge Brennan decides

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

What persuades

At the pleading stage, documentary allegations supporting an alias relationship were accepted as true and defeated a separate-entity argument that contradicted the complaint’s plausible allegations.

“But that conclusion contradicts the plausible allegations in the amended complaint. Because the amended complaint plausibly pleads Heartland is an alias of Simplified Living, and because the Court must take all well-pleaded allegations as true, Simplified Living’s Motion to Dismiss must be denied.”

The reviewed FLSA ruling separated categories of work by the strength of the evidence, granting judgment on unrelated work while preserving the tip-supporting-work issue for trial because a material factual dispute remained.

“Therefore, there is an outstanding dispute of material fact whether Steak N Shake improperly claimed a tip credit for time its servers performed tip-supporting work. Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate on this claim.”

Procedural preferences

A party could not introduce a materially different TCPA theory for the first time in summary-judgment opposition after discovery had closed without first seeking to amend the pleadings.

“Plaintiffs failed to first move to amend their pleadings before raising the new claims in opposition to summary judgment.”

The reviewed reconsideration motion failed because it cited no state authority showing that the state court had misapplied its own law, leaving the asserted clear-error theory unsupported.

“Given that Defendant’s reconsideration motion cites absolutely no Ohio caselaw standing for the proposition that the Ohio state court misapplied its own law in determining that the forum selection clause provided a valid basis for personal jurisdiction, Defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating why, as he contends, there is a ‘need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.’”

Cautions

A meritless pro se complaint did not, without more, justify sanctions in the reviewed case, although the court warned that future misrepresentations could change that result.

“While Plaintiff’s claims are meritless, the filing of this lawsuit does not warrant the imposition of sanctions.”

Signed rulings

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

Northwestern Ohio Administrators, Inc. v. Simplified Living LLC
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Simplified Living LLC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is DENIED.”

Fambrough v. City of East Cleveland
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the City Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts is GRANTED (Doc. 103), Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED (Doc. 104), and Gardner's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED (Doc. 108).”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted
Johnstone v. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 57) and Defendant's Motion to Strike or Exclude Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Declaration (Doc. 63) are DENIED as moot.”

Nations Lending Corp. v. Schultz
1:23-cv-00876 · 2023-06-09
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“Given that Defendant's reconsideration motion cites absolutely no Ohio caselaw standing for the proposition that the Ohio state court misapplied its own law in determining that the forum selection clause provided a valid basis for personal jurisdiction, Defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating why, as he contends, there is a ‘need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.’ Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.”

Bushner v. McConahay
1:22-cv-00484 · 2024-03-21
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. (Doc. No. 24.)”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The moving Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 26.) The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Officer Pajot. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Valois-Perez v. Warden Kenneth Black
3:21-cv-01149 · 2024-03-15
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“For the reasons stated in the Court's accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. No. 18), the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Bowman v. MetroHealth System
1:25-cv-00256 · 2025-11-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons stated herein, Defendant MetroHealth System's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Count Three of Plaintiff Jennifer Bowman's Complaint is DISMISSED. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to all other claims presented in the Complaint.”

Harding v. Steak N Shake, Inc.
1:21-cv-01212 · 2024-08-15
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“There is no genuine dispute of material fact that Steak N Shake claimed a tip credit for time its servers spent performing unrelated work in violation of the FLSA, the 1967 dual jobs regulation, and the 80/20 rule. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to their dual jobs claim.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Therefore, there is an outstanding dispute of material fact whether Steak N Shake improperly claimed a tip credit for time its servers performed tip-supporting work. Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate on this claim.”

United States v. Arrendondo
1:22-cr-00599 · 2024-09-25
Motion for sentence reduction (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, the motion for sentence reduction (Doc. 55) is DENIED.”

United States v. Carroll
1:22-cr-00340 · 2024-05-08
Motion for sentence reduction (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated herein, Defendant David Carroll's motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduced sentence pursuant to Parts A and B of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines is DENIED.”

Zeal v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.
1:23-cv-01784 · 2024-04-19
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, the CLE Defendants are DISMISSED and the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 10).”

Adler v. American Express Company
1:24-cv-00311 · 2025-03-25
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated herein, American Express's motion to compel arbitration (Doc. 19) is GRANTED, and the matter is STAYED pending arbitration.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 291 days (N = 6).

  • The sampled 2022-2023 docket includes federal criminal matters and civil disputes involving police and civil rights, employee benefits, consumer communications, False Claims Act allegations, voting access, contracts, wage claims, Social Security review, habeas petitions, prisoner claims, and subpoena proceedings.
  • Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay appears in a sampled Social Security referral. This is not a complete caseload census.

Draft for Judge Brennan with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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