John E. Hoffman, Jr.

How Judge Hoffman rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Recalled to service
Commissioned
2000-02-25
Education
Wheeling Jesuit University (B.A., 1980, summa cum laude); The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law (J.D., 1983, magna cum laude)
Signed orders read
22

How Judge Hoffman decides

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

What persuades

In one preference decision, expert payment-timing analysis established ordinary business terms when the opposing party raised questions without producing competing evidence.

“Unfortunately for Pidcock, posing questions is not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact.”

Procedural preferences

Conflicting and delayed certificates of service did not establish the proper service needed for entry of default.

“Given this timing and inconsistency, the Court has no confidence that Muncy properly served Financial with the summons and the Complaint.”

Cautions

A collateral-valuation argument first raised on reconsideration was treated as waived and barred by judicial estoppel.

“Because the Collateral-Valuation Argument was not made in the Objection but instead was made for the first time in the Reconsideration Motion, and because judicial estoppel bars the assertion of the Collateral-Valuation Argument, the Reconsideration Motion is DENIED except as to Claim 1117.”

Signed rulings

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

Murray v. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP
24-02028 · 2024-10-31
Motions to dismiss (Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP and related defendants) Granted

“Because the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Dismissal Motion is GRANTED, and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Nealey v. Ohio Attorney General
2:24-ap-02016 · 2025-08-11

After trial, the debtor recovered $2,025 of an intercepted federal payment as an avoidable preference, while the state-tax setoff and the balance of the federal payment remained with the state.

In re Richard Ronald Stone
2:14-bk-57885 · 2025-07-15

The court found the settlement agreement ambiguous, scheduled an evidentiary hearing, and deferred the exemption dispute until ownership of the retirement-account interest could be decided.

In re Lonny N. Collins
2:24-bk-54928 · 2025-06-02
Objection to claim of exemptions (Faye D. English, Chapter 13 trustee) Denied

“For these reasons, the Objection is OVERRULED.”

Estate of Donovan L. Lewis v. Anderson
2:24-ap-02084 · 2025-05-19
Motions to remand (Estate of Donovan L. Lewis) Granted

“the Court GRANTS the Remand Motion’s request for permissive abstention and equitable remand.”

Request for costs and fees on remand (Estate of Donovan L. Lewis) Denied

“the Court DENIES the Remand Motion’s request for costs and fees”

Motion for relief from automatic stay (Estate of Donovan L. Lewis) Granted

“The Court also GRANTS the Stay Motion for the reasons stated above.”

In re Ricky Ray Anderson and Melanie Michele Anderson
2:24-bk-53823 · 2025-05-19

This main-case filing duplicates the opinion entered in the related Lewis adversary proceeding and is retained only to document the archive review.

First Merchants Bank v. Johnson
2:23-ap-02056 · 2024-09-13
Summary judgment (First Merchants Bank) Denied

“Motion is therefore DENIED.”

Murray v. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP
2:24-ap-02028 · 2024-08-30
Motions to remand (Brenda L. Murray and Michael J. Shaheen) Denied

“For all these reasons, the Remand Motion is DENIED.”

Muncy v. Financial Service Centers of Ohio, LLC
2:23-ap-02058 · 2024-04-09
Request for entry of default (Candice Muncy) Denied

“therefore DENIES Muncy’s requests for entry of a default.”

Pidcock v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.
2:20-ap-02077 · 2024-03-29
Summary judgment (Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, the Summary Judgment Motion is GRANTED.”

In re Murray Energy Holdings Co.
2:19-bk-56885 · 2024-02-23
Motion for reconsideration (Drivetrain, LLC, as plan administrator, as to Claims 1106, 1107, 1114, and 1123) Denied

“Thus, the Reconsideration Motion is denied as to Claims 1106, 1107, 1114 and 1123.”

In re Hockenberry
· 2011-09-16
Plan confirmation (James E. Hockenberry, Jr.) Denied

“For the reasons set forth above, confirmation of the Amended Plan is DENIED without prejudice to the Debtor’s refiling a second amended Chapter 11 plan.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Five sampled matters were recorded as terminated and the Murray adversary remained open in the search metadata. The adversary stream supplied two express outcomes.

Draft for Judge Hoffman with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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