Magdeline D. Coleman
How Judge Coleman rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Coleman no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Coleman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Prior findings that had survived appeal supported summary judgment through issue preclusion and the law-of-the-case doctrine.
“application of the law of the case doctrine and/or issue preclusion requires this Court to grant the Motions”
Procedural preferences
Proper service was treated as a prerequisite to contempt relief, even where the recipient had actual notice.
“The fact that the IRS may have had actual notice of the Subpoena does not obviate the requirement of proper service.”
Cautions
Dismissal with prejudice followed only after the court concluded that amendment could not cure the pleading defect.
“However, if this Court finds that amendment would be futile, this Court may dismiss a claim with prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Counts II, III, and IV of the Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).”
This decision entered judgment after trial on discharge and dischargeability claims; the separate lien-avoidance request remained for further proceedings.
This lengthy opinion explains the disposition entered in the separately archived order and is retained without duplicating that order's outcomes.
“The First Interim Application is DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
“The Final Interim Application is DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
“this Court will grant the Motion in part and deny it in part.”
“Consistent with this memorandum, this Court will enter an order dismissing with prejudice”
“the Motion to Amend is hereby DISMISSED for futility.”
“the Trustee’s request for a finding of contempt is DENIED.”
This memorandum supported a previously entered plan-confirmation order rather than deciding a new motion.
“the Motions will be granted because application of the law of the case doctrine and issue preclusion is sufficient to establish that a denial of discharge is warranted”
This memorandum supported previously entered redemption and plan-confirmation orders rather than deciding a new motion.
This decision confirmed a Chapter 13 plan and resolved a plan objection rather than a separately classified motion.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
All five sampled cases were filed between May and November 2010 and terminated between September 2010 and April 2016.
A historical record
Judge Coleman no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.