Karen Anne Gren Scholer
How Judge Scholer rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Scholer
Karen Gren Scholer is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Scholer received a commission on March 6, 2018.
Judge Scholer's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Scholer, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Email editable Word proposed orders with all nondispositive motions and responses opposing them.
“Proposed orders must accompany all non-dispositive motions and responses opposing non-dispositive motions. The orders must be submitted in modifiable ‘Word’ format”
Discovery
Request an expedited discovery hearing by motion at least ten days before the docket.
“Requests must be made by motion filed at least ten days prior to the requested docket.”
Conferences
Attend scheduling conferences in person absent extraordinary circumstances.
“Judge Scholer prefers to conduct Scheduling Conferences in person. Leave to appear virtually will not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.”
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 Scholer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Houser v. Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company, she found one statutory insurance claim inadequately pleaded because the amended complaint did not allege liability above policy limits, but allowed the plaintiff to amend with more supporting facts.
“Plaintiff does not allege in the Amended Complaint liability in excess of policy limits. Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's claim under subsection (a)(2)(A) is inadequately pleaded at this time; however, the Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to amend to provide greater detail on the facts supporting such claim.”
In Van Heurck v. Rolls-Royce, Scholer denied summary judgment on a statute-of-repose defense after applying Texas choice-of-law rules and concluding that Virgin Islands law governed the helicopter-crash claims.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Rolls-Royce Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 72].”
In Mohu Enterprises v. John Galt Solutions, she left the disputed circumstances of an express warranty for the jury rather than resolve them on summary judgment.
“Because genuine issues of material fact exist as to the circumstances surrounding the making of the disputed express warranty, areasonable jury might return averdict in favor of either party.”
In Saulter v. Johnson County, she stayed a civil retaliation suit while a sheriff’s related criminal charges were pending after finding that all six stay factors favored a pause, including overlapping allegations and the risk to his Fifth Amendment rights.
“All six factors weigh in favor of staying this case.”
Procedural preferences
In Dillon v. Dallas County, Scholer dismissed a Section 1983 municipal-liability claim for insufficient allegations of a policy or custom. She allowed a second amended complaint by March 13, 2026, and warned that the claims would be dismissed with prejudice if none was filed by then.
“the Court GRANTS Defendant Dallas County, Texas's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 13]. Because Plaintiff has requested leave to amend his Amended Complaint ... the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint by March 13, 2026. If a second amended complaint is not filed within such time, Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed with prejudice.”
In Lambert v. Nguyen, Scholer remanded a motor-vehicle suit because the defendants had not supplied enough evidence to establish the jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence.
“Defendants have not met their burden to establish subject- matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Rolls-Royce Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 72].”
“The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and promissory estoppel claims ... the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act claims against Defendants Barbara Bowman, Elizabeth Eureste, and Anita Augilar and Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages ... The Court DENIES the Motion as to Plaintiff's Section 1981 and Section 1983 claims on Eleventh Amendment or sovereign immunity grounds. The Court defers ruling on the Motion in all other respects.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant Dallas County, Texas's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 13]. Because Plaintiff has requested leave to amend his Amended Complaint ... the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his Amended Complaint. Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint by March 13, 2026. If a second amended complaint is not filed within such time, Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff Alisa Walton's Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 60]. The Court GRANTS the Motion as to: (1) Plaintiff's retaliation claim based on the Notice of Proposed Removal and investigation; and (2) Plaintiff's discrimination claim based on the denial of a performance bonus in 2021. The Court DENIES the Motion to the extent Plaintiff intended to seek reconsideration of the rulings on her claims based on her removal from a highly significant investigation in 2022 ... As such, the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of those claims.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Undersigned Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in Part [ECF No. 542].”
“the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.”
“the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss.”
“For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Claims for Tortious Interference, Civil Conspiracy, and Unjust Enrichment [ECF No. 24].”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [ECF No. 9]. This case is REMANDED to the 160th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [ECF No. 6]. This case is REMANDED to the 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The caseload description is illustrative of the sampled cases and is not a complete census of Judge Scholer's docket.
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 Scholer: 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 Scholer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Scholer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Scholer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace