Ada Elene Brown
How Judge Brown rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brown
Ada Elene Brown is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Brown received a commission on September 13, 2019.
Judge Brown's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Brown's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- Special Order 19-2: Service, Access, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Miscellaneous Order 61-1: Restrictions on Electronic Filing of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Miscellaneous Order 61: Electronic Case Filing ↗
- Special Order 19-1: Second Amended Order Regarding Public Access to Certain Documents ↗
How Judge Brown decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Nguyen, Brown found that the Western District of Oklahoma had jurisdiction to consider the stay request, while her court did not.
“So the court in the Western District of Oklahoma has jurisdiction to address Nguyen’s request for a stay. ... But this Court does not.”
After compelling arbitration, Brown kept the federal action stayed where the claimant had not paid the contractually required filing fee and the opposing party had not defaulted in the arbitral process.
“because arbitration has not been had in accordance with the parties’ agreement and PayPal is not in default, 9 U.S.C. § 3 requires this action to remain stayed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) and dismisses Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. Plaintiff has 21 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint repleading her claims, if she can”
“Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 11). Defendants' motion to dismiss, (Doc. 6), is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons enumerated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety.”
“the Court GRANTS PPS's Motion to Partially Dismiss. (ECF No. 20). The Court DISMISSES, without prejudice, Barnes's (i) hostile work environment claim(s) as asserted under Title VII and the TCHRA against PPS and (ii) retaliation claim(s) as asserted under Title VII and the TCHRA against PPS.”
“The Court further DENIES AS MOOT PPS's earlier-filed Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 12).”
“the Court concludes permitting Plaintiffs 'any [further] attempts at amendment would be futile.' ... For those reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' embedded request for leave to amend. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant Crawford & Co.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 13, 2021 (doc. 40), is GRANTED. By separate judgment, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant will be DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss. Rather than dismiss this case with prejudice, the Court will allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days from the date of this order.”
“Accordingly, Defendants' motions to dismiss (Doc. 22; Doc. 24; Doc. 25) are GRANTED. Plaintiff and/or GLM Realty Group LLC shall retain licensed counsel to enter an appearance on behalf of GLM within 14 days of the day of this order. If this directive is not complied with, this case will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE by operation of law”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ... the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Lutz's FMLA and ADA claims.”
“The Court DENIES Lutz's Motion for Summary Judgment as to her FMLA interference claim.”
“The Court DENIES Defendants' motion to strike summary judgment evidence as moot.”
“the Court GRANTS Dallas College's motion for summary judgment on all of Edrich's claims. The Court DENIES Edrich's motion for leave.”
“The Court DENIES Edrich's motion for leave.”
“plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED insofar as the Court concludes that the term ‘but for’ as used in the insurance policy means ‘except for’ (ECF. No. 110) and DENIED in all other parts.”
“Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 113, 114-2) is DENIED.”
“the Court finds that Petitioner has not made the requisite showings for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and therefore DENIES the motions ... Petitioner's conclusory two-page filings (ECF Nos. 16 & 17) fail to satisfy all four requirements.”
“the Court DENIES Petitioner's ‘Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal’ (ECF No. 16) and ‘Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order’ (ECF No. 17).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled cases provide a limited view of Brown's caseload and are not an authoritative caseload denominator.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 5 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 5 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, not for Judge Brown: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 4,103 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 829 | 4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 3,228 | 6.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 11 | 16.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 35 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 4,103 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,648 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,808 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,698 | 56 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,094 | 19.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,294 | 13.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,367 | 6.9 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Brown with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brown, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brown's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace