Andrew M. Edison
How Judge Edison decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment, declines to rule as a matter of law where contractual language is indefinite and the parties' intent (or when a right vested) is a fact question; favors developing the record / letting a jury decide.
“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
Strictly construes the removal statute and resolves doubt in favor of remand; demands a timely-filed written indication of every served defendant's consent (Getty Oil fn.11). A blanket 'all defendants consent' line in the notice of removal, or a consent affidavit filed after the 30-day deadline, will not save a removal.
“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
Bluntly rejects strained or 'novel' legal arguments. In a contract dispute he characterized the plaintiff's theory that a termination was itself a breach as 'misguided' and not the law.
“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.'”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 5 |
Granted: 5 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted: 2Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”