Andrew M. Edison
How Judge Edison rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Edison
Andrew M. Edison has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas since February 2018. He earned a degree from Dartmouth College and a law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law.
Judge Edison's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Edison, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Serve the Galveston practice rules with the summons and complaint or removal papers and file proof of service.
“Plaintiffs must serve a copy of these rules on each defendant with the summons and complaint. A party removing a case to this court must serve a copy of these rules on all other parties with the removal papers. Proof reflecting service of these rules must be filed with the U.S. District Clerk.”
Conferences
At least one lawyer for each represented party must attend the Rule 16 conference handled by Judge Edison.
“Rule 16 conferences will be scheduled by the court and handled by Judge Edison. At least one attorney for each represented party must attend.”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Edison decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Insurance Distribution Consulting v. Freedom Equity Group, Edison recommended denying partial summary judgment because the disputed contract language was indefinite and the parties’ understanding required a fuller record.
“From my perspective, the contractual language at issue is far from definite and conclusive. As such, I recommend that summary judgment on this issue be denied to allow for a more developed record concerning the parties' understanding of the Purported Contract.”
Procedural preferences
In Sage Industries v. Burningham, Edison recommended remand because the removing defendant had not shown timely consent from all served defendants; its blanket consent statement and later affidavit did not cure the defect.
“the law in the Fifth Circuit is well-established that a blanket statement by a removing defendant that the non-removing defendants consent to removal is insufficient, standing alone, to demonstrate that all defendants have consented to removal. ... HHI has made an effort to cure this defect, but the Holtsclaw affidavit was not filed until a month after the 30-day time period for filing had expired. This is not a mere 'hyper-technical' deficiency.”
Cautions
In Insurance Distribution Consulting v. Freedom Equity Group, Edison rejected the plaintiff’s theory that terminating the disputed contract necessarily breached it, calling that argument misguided.
“IDC takes the remarkable position that FEG's termination of the Purported Contract is, somehow, a breach of the Purported Contract. To put it mildly, this argument is misguided. ... IDC's 'novel legal argument would make every termination of [a] contract calling for continuing performance a breach of that contract. That is not the law.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Edison filed a Memorandum and Recommendation on August 9, 2023, recommending that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 44) be GRANTED. ... (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 44) is GRANTED.”
“(2) Defendant Oyster Creek's Opposed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED;”
“(3) Defendant Stephen Heckler's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, Alternatively, to Compel a Reply to Immunity (Dkt. 42) is GRANTED;”
“(4) Defendant Village of Surfside Beach's Motion to Dismiss for failure to State a Claim (Dkt. 43) is GRANTED;”
“(5) Defendant Gary Phillips' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, Alternatively, to Compel a Reply to Immunity (Dkt. 45) is GRANTED; and (6) Luhellier's suit is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.”
“Pending before me is Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Dkt. 63. For the reasons discussed below, I recommend that the motion be DENIED. ... For the reasons explained above, I recommend that Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be DENIED.”
“(2) Defendant American National Insurance Company's Amended Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 21) is granted. Health First's claims under Chapters 541 and 542 should are dismissed. Health First's breach-of-contract claim remains.”
“the court finds that the decision granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is supported by the record and the applicable law. ... The Motion for Summary Judgment, (Docket Entry No. 32), is granted, and this civil action is dismissed with prejudice. This is final judgment.”
“I recommend the motion be GRANTED, and this case be returned to state court. The removing defendant, Highland Hay International, LLC ('HHI'), has failed to demonstrate that all properly joined and served defendants timely consented to removal. ... I recommend that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Dkt. 8) be GRANTED.”
“For the reasons discussed above, I recommend that Reynolds’s partial motion to dismiss (Dkt. 13) be granted.”
“Judge Edison’s memorandum and recommendation (Dkt. 29) is approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court; and (2) Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 15) is denied.”
“Judge Edison’s memorandum and recommendation (Dkt. 42) is approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court; and (2) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 28) is granted as to Plaintiff’s claim for quantum meruit and denied in all other respects.”
“For the reasons discussed above, I recommend that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) be granted.”
“Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and in the alternative, motion to drop parties under Rule 21 (Dkt. 56) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Accordingly, I recommend that Mitchell’s motion be denied without prejudice.”
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 | 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 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 United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, not for Judge Edison: 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 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 2,442 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,371 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 871 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 58 | 31.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 5,086 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 4,762 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 4,595 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,745 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 5,009 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,233 | 7.5 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 Edison with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Edison, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Edison's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace