Barbara M. G. Lynn
How Judge Lynn rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Lynn no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Lynn
Barbara M. Lynn was a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Lynn received a commission on November 22, 1999. Judge Lynn assumed senior status on May 15, 2023 and retired on August 1, 2025.
How Judge Lynn decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
ADA Title II (architectural-barrier suits): under Frame v. City of Arlington (5th Cir. 2010, en banc), sidewalks, curbs, and parking lots are 'infrastructure'/'facilities'/'gateways': NOT 'services, programs, or activities.' A plaintiff challenging a noncompliant ramp or parking lot states no Title II claim unless the noncompliance denies her meaningful access to an actual service, program, or activity; she must correlate the physical violation to a deprivation of access.
“the Fifth Circuit found that sidewalks, curbs, and parking lots are not services, programs, or activities within the meaning of Title II, but are, instead, 'infrastructure,' 'facilities,' or gateways to services, programs, or activities. ... no claim is stated by a suit challenging the condition of sidewalks, curbs, and parking lots, unless the condition results in a denial of access to a service, program, or activity.”
In Greer v. Richardson Independent School District, Judge Lynn granted Rule 59(e) reconsideration after intervening Fifth Circuit precedent supplied controlling authority on the ADA access issue.
“Relief under Rule 59(e) is appropriate when there has been an intervening change in the controlling law. ... where recent Fifth Circuit case law constitutes controlling authority which this Court earlier noted was lacking, Rule 59(e) relief is warranted.”
In FTC v. Neora, Lynn granted the agency's motion for judgment on the pleadings against three affirmative defenses. She rejected laches because the FTC was enforcing public rights, while treating the monetary-relief issue under section 13(b) as resolved by an earlier order.
“the FTC is operating in a sovereign capacity for the protection and furtherance of public rights and interests ... the affirmative defense of laches does not apply.”
Immigration adjudication-delay suits: 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B) strips jurisdiction over Mandamus Act claims challenging USCIS's pace of adjudicating discretionary I-485 adjustment applications (Bian v. Clinton 'dispositive'), and the APA does not reach action 'committed to agency discretion by law.' Such suits are dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (without prejudice).
“Congress has expressly precluded judicial review of the USCIS's pace of adjudication when the agency acts within its discretion and pursuant to the regulations that the agency deems necessary for carrying out its statutory grant of authority.”
In Tovar v. City of Dallas, Judge Lynn declined to apply a summary-judgment comparator standard to the plaintiff’s Title VII claims at the pleading stage, allowing those claims to proceed.
“Defendant's Motion primarily relies upon Alkhawaldeh ..., which concerned summary judgment, not a motion to dismiss. The Court will not hold Plaintiff to the higher summary judgment standard at this phase and denies the Motion as to Plaintiff's Title VII claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED ... Because the present Motion for Reconsideration was filed within ten days of entry of the Court's Order denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court treats it as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the ramp and parking spaces is GRANTED ... Plaintiff's claims as to the ramp and parking spaces are DISMISSED.”
“Plaintiff's Third Motion for Summary Judgment as to the ramp and parking spaces is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. #7] is granted in part and denied in part. The claims of the following plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice: Alfredo Avila; Jarrett Baker; Misti Dial; Judy Garcia; Montae Keller, Sr.; ... In all other respects, the motion is denied.”
“Defendant State Bar of Texas' ('Defendant') Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (doc. 19, 'Motion to Dismiss') is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed January 6, 2012 (doc. 5), is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's complaint against it is dismissed with prejudice and without an opportunity to replead.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. #7] is GRANTED with respect to all of Plaintiffs' claims and causes of action, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendants' request for attorneys' fees is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 9, 2020 (doc. 18) is GRANTED ... By separate judgment, the plaintiffs' claims will be DISMISSED with prejudice, and the defendant will be authorized to foreclose on its lien.”
“Plaintiff/Counter Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed October 8, 2020 (doc. 26) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 23, 2020 (doc. 11), is GRANTED. By separate judgment, the plaintiffs' claims will be DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the FTC's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on All Affirmative Defenses is GRANTED.”
“CureWave's Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Entry of Default (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED, but CureWave will reimburse Bellinger for his reasonable costs and fees incurred in connection with obtaining and setting aside the clerk's entry of default”
“Daniel Herbert is DISMISSED (ECF No. 25) and Daniel Herbert's Motion to Dismiss is DENIES AS MOOT (ECF No. 21).”
“The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with all costs taxed to the party incurring same.”
“Defendant Raytheon's Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Where granted, the dismissal is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs amending by April 15, 2024, unless the dismissal is stated to be with prejudice.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ('ADA') and 42 U.S.C. 1983, ... which are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and DENIED as to Plaintiff's Title VII claims.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Lynn's sampled docket includes commercial, intellectual-property, civil-rights, and federal post-conviction matters. Notable cases include FTC v. Neora LLC, an enforcement action concerning multilevel marketing, and the patent dispute Helmerich & Payne v. Nabors, each litigated for roughly three years.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Lynn was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2025.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 23 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 23 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 24 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 1 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Lynn no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.