Jorge Antonio Solis

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas district Retired 2016 · served 1991–2016 Appointed by George H. W. Bush (Republican) 12 signed orders read

Judge Solis no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Solis decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He applied the liberal amendment standard when discovery supplied a timely factual basis and the opposing side did not show futility or unfair prejudice.

“Absent one of those factors, the Court should grant leave to amend.”

He accepted plausible factual inferences drawn from ordinary workplace technology when evaluating a computer-access claim.

“experience and common sense suggest that Gresham’s workplace computer was connected to the internet.”

He preserved ordinary contract claims even when federal transportation law preempted related negligence theories.

“49 U.S.C. § 14501 preempts all state law claims except for ordinary breach of contract claims.”

Procedural preferences

He confined remand analysis to the allegations actually pleaded and would not treat new assertions in motion papers as part of the complaint.

“The Court cannot accept assertions in their motion as part of the allegations.”

He enforced the binding choice between a negotiated grievance process and a statutory discrimination procedure.

“once an election is made, the decision is irrevocable.”

Cautions

An emergency injunction request could fail where the movant bypassed a published administrative review process.

“there is no evidence that Plaintiff has formally started the process to challenge the termination of its Medicare privileges.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Merritt Hawkins & Associates, LLC v. Gresham
· 2014-06-17
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Amend.”

Home Health Care Plus, Inc. v. Burwell
· 2014-12-16
Motion for temporary restraining order (plaintiff) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, injunctive relief is DENIED.”

Messersmith v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance
· 2014-04-07
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Remand.”

Merritt Hawkins & Associates, LLC v. Gresham
· 2013-06-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Gresham’s Motion to Dismiss.”

Motion for temporary restraining order (plaintiff) Denied

“As MHA has failed to provide any evidentiary support for this equitable request, that motion is DENIED.”

Ameriprise Financial, Inc. v. Bailey
· 2013-05-13
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“After reviewing the parties’ briefing, the evidence, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motions.”

Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied
Wise Recycling, LLC v. M2 Logistics
· 2013-04-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”

Daldav Associates, L.P. v. Lebor
· 2005-08-04
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Lightbourn Equipment Co. v. Perkins Engines, Inc.
· 1999-02-10
Motion to stay remand (defendants) Denied

“Having detected no sufficient reason to stay this action, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.”

Verizon Employee Benefits Committee v. Frawley
· 2008-01-22
Summary judgment (defendant Frawley) Granted

“For these reasons, Frawley’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”

Settlement Capital Corp. v. BHG Structured Settlements, Inc.
· 2004-04-07
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“In conclusion, the Court the Court DENIES Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss.”

Haile v. Town of Addison
· 2003-04-25
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, after a thorough review of the evidence, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Linthecome v. O'Neill
· 2001-11-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss is granted.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 582.5 days (N = 4).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 4 days (N = 10).

The four sampled closed matters include Fair Labor Standards Act cases, a mortgage dispute, and related contract litigation. Their durations describe this bounded historical sample rather than Solis's full career docket.

A historical record

Judge Solis 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.