Sean Daniel Jordan
How Judge Jordan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
His standard of review on a magistrate judge's recommendation tracks whether a party objected: he reviews de novo the portions to which a timely, specific objection is made, and where no objection is filed he reviews only for clear error on the face of the record. A party that disagrees with a recommendation must file specific written objections within the fourteen-day period to obtain de novo review.
“When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen days of service, the district court ‘need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.’”
He holds parties strictly to filing deadlines and is unreceptive to relief sought only after an adverse recommendation. He denied a belated request to respond to a summary-judgment motion and to amend the complaint, applying the Rule 6(b) excusable-neglect and Rule 16(b) good-cause standards and treating a long, unexplained delay as fatal. The lesson before him: respond to dispositive motions on time and seek leave to amend before, not after, the court has acted.
“Seventy-five days after their deadline to respond, and only after the Magistrate Judge had already recommended dismissal of their claims, Copeland and CoFour seek relief. Under the circumstances, such a period of delay is unreasonable.”
He holds pro se litigants to the same procedural rules as represented parties, denying a pro se bankruptcy appeal outright for non-compliance with the appellate briefing rules. A pro se party before him gains no relaxation of Rule 8014 or the other procedural requirements.
“acquires no greater rights than a litigant represented by a lawyer”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' objections, (Dkt. #38), are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. #10), is DENIED.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (Dkt. #19), is DENIED.”
“It is further ORDERED that Defendants' motion to transfer venue, (Dkt. #19), is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that North Texas Municipal Water District's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #22), is GRANTED. Plaintiff Carolyn Salzar's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #99), is GRANTED and that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #103), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants grant the permit that Plaintiff sought.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #99), is GRANTED and that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #103), is DENIED.”
“It is further ORDERED that Defendant ManaMed Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, and in the Alternative, for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Dkt. #57), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Charles Copeland and CoFour, LLC's claims against Defendant ManaMed, Inc. are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs Copeland and CoFour's ‘Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Response to Report and Recommendation,’ (Dkt. #61), is DENIED.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant State Farm Lloyds's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #39), is GRANTED and each of Plaintiff's claims for violation of the Texas Insurance Code (save and except Plaintiff's claim under § 542.058) and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and violation of § 542.058 of the Texas Insurance Code shall proceed to trial.”
“Accordingly, the Motion (Dkt. #31) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Judgment, (Dkt. #138), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court awards Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $7,000,000 each, prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and costs of court. But the Court awards prejudgment interest at a rate of $273.97 per day, rather than $275.97 per day.”
“Navient's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint or Strike Impermissible Claims, (Dkt. #123), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's defamation/libel claim, TCPA claim, and 'intrusion on seclusion' invasion of privacy claim. These claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... ECMC's Motion to Dismiss ... is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART ... GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's defamation/libel claim ... DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that the Motions for Summary Judgment, (Dkts. #165, 185), are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants WinCo Foods, Carly Leibengood, and Brian Miller's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. #35), is GRANTED and Plaintiff Bryan Gray's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“CHU de Quebec's Motion for Continuance of Trial Setting and Pre-Trial Deadlines, (Dkt. #114), is GRANTED, and Defendants' Motion for Continuance and to Extend Related Deadlines, (Dkt. #121), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Jordan's Sherman and Plano docket includes insurance and contract disputes, consumer and credit-reporting suits, Social Security appeals, employment and civil-rights cases, securities litigation, state-prisoner and immigration-detention habeas petitions, immigration mandamus, civil forfeiture, criminal cases, and patent litigation. Many civil matters are referred to magistrate judges.
Put Judge Jordan's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Jordan actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Jordan's own signed orders and cites them.