Karen Anne Gren Scholer
How Judge Scholer rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
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 a multi-insurer coverage case, a statutory bad-faith theory tied to excess-of-policy-limits liability must plead that predicate; when the omission may be curable, she permits a targeted amendment rather than ending the entire action.
“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.”
Scholer applies a rigorous Texas choice-of-law analysis and places the burden on the movant to show foreign law applies: she denied summary judgment on a statute-of-repose defense after finding the place of injury was not fortuitous and that the forum's law (with no repose statute) governed.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Rolls-Royce Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 72].”
Treats a disputed express warranty and the circumstances in which it was made as jury questions rather than grounds for 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.”
Procedural preferences
On Section 1983 Monell municipal-liability claims she requires a policy or custom pleaded with specificity and sufficiently numerous prior incidents (post-incident statistics or a single news article do not suffice); she grants the Rule 12(b)(6) motion but ordinarily allows leave to replead, converting to dismissal with prejudice only if no timely amended complaint follows.
“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.”
Strictly construes removal jurisdiction and requires evidence establishing the amount in controversy when the complaint does not make the threshold apparent.
“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.
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