Michael H. Schneider Sr.
Judge Schneider no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Schneider decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He required record evidence, not argument or speculation, to create a genuine factual dispute at summary judgment.
“Plaintiffs burden may not be satisfied by argument, conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, metaphysical doubt as to the facts, or a mere scintilla of evidence.”
A transfer movant prevailed by showing that identified witnesses and evidence made the proposed forum clearly more convenient.
“Having fully considered all of the private and public interest factors, Defendants have met their burden to show that the Northern District of California is ‘clearly more convenient’ than the Eastern District of Texas.”
He treated a plausible nonfraud explanation as defeating the heightened scienter inference required in a securities case.
“But those allegations are insufficient to do so *791in view of the competing, even stronger inference that Defendants simply miscalculated the degree and duration of its labor issues.”
Procedural preferences
He consolidated duplicative arguments rather than separately analyzing repeated points across multiple motions.
“The Court will consider each major point, but will combine duplicative arguments for simplicity and brevity.”
He treated issues inadequately developed in appellate briefing as waived.
“Accordingly, he has inadequately briefed any issue presented here, and it is waived.”
Cautions
Bare allegations that a defendant must have known disputed facts did not satisfy heightened pleading requirements.
“Even if the Court ignored precedent that holds ‘must have known’ allegations are insufficient, Plaintiff’s allegations do not provide a cogent or compelling inference of scienter”
He discounted speculative witness assertions when parties did not identify the people who possessed relevant information.
“Accordingly, the Court affords these general assertions less weight because of their speculative nature.”
A conclusory appellate argument without supporting authority was treated as waived.
“Appellant has added no argument to his two-sentence assertion that his counterclaims survived dismissal and he has cited no authority whatsoever.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 28) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff United States of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 77) is GRANTED, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 78) is DENIED, and Defendants’ Amended Motion to Reconsider and/or Modify Memorandum Adopting Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 80) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 11) is granted.”
“Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16). Plaintiffs claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice.”
“It is, therefore, ORDERED that Third-Party Defendant Vinay B. Patel’s Second Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. #43) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends Defendant’s motion be GRANTED.”
“It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Defendant Tyler Pipe’s motion for summary judgment be, and hereby is, in all things GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus be and hereby is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated more thoroughly above, Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to transfer as to the claims against Verizon and HTC (Doe. No. 35) is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ claims be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART JPMC’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 110) consistent with the opinion herein. JPMC’s separate motion to dismiss DTC’s counterclaims (Doc. No. 119) is DENIED as MOOT. DTC’s motions for partial summary judgment (Doc. Nos. Ill, 117, 118) are DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Secretary’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 234 days (N = 16).
The bounded January 2005 enumeration contains sixteen terminated cases after duplicate records for two criminal matters were collapsed. It is a narrow archival slice, not a career-wide caseload measure.
A historical record
Judge Schneider 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.