Andrew Scott Hanen
How Judge Hanen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On summary judgment he applies the Celotex burden-shift strictly and lets a case survive on the non-movant's testimony: in Jordan v. State Farm a contractor's deposition/declaration that the leak reached disputed rooms and damaged the tile and granite created a genuine fact dispute, defeating the insurer's MSJ on those items -- but claims the non-movant failed to address on the merits were summarily lost.
“Plaintiffs therefore satisfied their summary judgment burden to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the allegedly damaged areas of the Property... Plaintiffs, however, do not address any of these argument in their summary judgment response.”
He enforces forum-selection clauses literally under the Alliance Health Group rule: a clause fixing venue in a named Texas county permits federal court ONLY if a federal courthouse physically sits in that county. Because no federal court sits in Walker County, he dismissed for forum non conveniens despite Walker County being within his division.
“according to the Alliance Health Group doctrine, the only proper venue for this dispute is in a state court in Walker County, Texas. Accordingly, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens”
On employment-discrimination summary judgment he runs the full McDonnell-Douglas burden-shift and dismisses at whichever step the plaintiff fails: a plaintiff who never applied for the position cannot make a prima facie case, and a retaliation plaintiff must show but-for causation (Nassar) and actual evidence that the employer's stated reason is pretext -- an admitted underlying conflict that the plaintiff conceded was reprimand-worthy defeats pretext. Bring concrete pretext evidence, not argument.
“Without showing that he was qualified for, and was denied a job he sought, Rodriguez cannot establish a prima facie case... The Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to this claim because Plaintiff has failed to raise a genuine dispute as to any material fact”
On removal he resolves doubt against federal jurisdiction and remands when removal rests only on a contested complete-preemption theory: pre-plan fraudulent-inducement claims relate only indirectly to an ERISA plan and are not completely preempted, so there is no federal-question hook. But procedural removal defects (e.g. rule-of-unanimity) are waived if not raised within 30 days, so a late remand motion on a procedural defect fails. Move to remand early and attack subject-matter jurisdiction, not just procedure.
“Since Plaintiffs' state-law claims are not preempted by ERISA and Defendants [have] not provided this Court with any other jurisdictional basis for removal, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion of Remand is GRANTED.”
Procedural preferences
He has his own published local rules (cited as 'Hanen L.R.') and enforces them -- e.g. Hanen L.R. 3(E) bars combining two unrelated pleadings in one filing, and Hanen L.R. 7(D) treats a non-response as no opposition. Check his standing/local rules before filing.
“This response also violates the Court's local rules, which provide that "Counsel shall not combine two different and unrelated pleadings (motions, responses, replies, or exhibits) into the same electronically filed document." See S.D. Tex. Loc. (Hanen) 3(E).”
On de-novo review of a magistrate's R&R he does not rubber-stamp: in Perry v. Halliburton he expressly confirmed the MJ did NOT enter a 'default' summary judgment for the non-response but 'meticulously walked through and weighed the law and the evidence,' consistent with Johnson v. Pettiford -- so a dispositive motion will not be granted automatically on a missed response.
“where a party does not respond to a summary judgment motion, such failure does not permit the court to enter a "default" summary judgment. ... the Magistrate Judge followed the Circuit's dictates and performed the required review and did not enter a "default" summary judgment.”
Cautions
He treats a late Rule 41(a)(2) voluntary-dismissal-without-prejudice as plain legal prejudice when it looks like an escape from a pending MSJ -- analyzing the four-factor test (defendant's trial-prep effort, plaintiff's delay/lack of diligence, insufficient explanation, pending MSJ) and converting the maneuver into an adverse posture. Don't try to walk away from a case to dodge summary judgment in his court.
“a plaintiffs dismissal of suit that is intended to avoid an imminent adverse result on summary judgment is plain legal prejudice. ... this Motion to Dismiss appears to be an effort to avoid an adverse ruling on a pending motion for summary judgment.”
He requires relief to be actually pleaded: he denied a plaintiff's partial MSJ for a declaratory judgment because the live petition contained no declaratory-relief claim and he had denied leave to add one -- 'Summary judgment cannot be entered on a claim not pleaded in the complaint.' Plead every theory you intend to move on.
“this Court cannot grant summary judgment to Plaintiffs. "Summary judgment cannot be entered on a claim not pleaded in the complaint, as that claim is not fairly before the Court."”
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.
| Summary judgment N = 6 |
Granted: 3Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 5 |
Granted: 1Denied: 4 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted: 3Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for voluntary dismissal N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to exclude expert N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Habeas petition N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to transfer venue N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to compel arbitration N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to supplement N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Default judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion in limine N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 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.
“Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED.”
“Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. No. 1), is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) GRANTED; ... Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss General Motors. (Doc. No. 34).”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 16, 17).”
“Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs Renewed Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 37) is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion to Exclude (Doc. No. 33) is GRANTED”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED”
“the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens and Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED-IN-PART. All claims against the Individual Defendants are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the mandatory forum selection clause.”
“WWAG's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. o. 11) is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. Plaintiffs have until February 13, 2026 to file a First Amended Complaint. If no amended complaint is filed, the case is dismissed.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand these proceedings is hereby denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 17].”
“Also before the Court are Defendant's Motion in Limine, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, and Plaintiff's Amended Motion in Limine. [Docs. No. 20-22]. These motions are denied as moot.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 68) is GRANTED.”
“the Court hereby ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation and hereby GRANTS Petitioners' Motion for Entry of Defaults against Scorpio Commercial Management, S.A.M. and any and all claimants who have not filed and presented their claims (Doc. No. 28).”
“Plaintiffs' Motions for Remand (Doc. Nos. 61, 63) are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 424 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 84 days (N = 3).
Senior USDJ, Houston Division. June-2026 newly-assigned docket is overwhelmingly '463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee' 2241 petitions (e.g. Ramirez-Monsivais v. Blanche 4:26-cv-04435, Perez v. Tate 4:26-cv-04372, Leon Espinoza v. Mullin 4:26-cv-04285), all pending. The merits civil cases sampled span insurance (Jordan v. State Farm 4:24-cv-00900; Schroeder v. American Modern 4:24-cv-04566), products liability (Lucero v. GM 4:21-cv-02893), marine/maritime (Perry v. Halliburton 4:23-cv-04441), patent (Legacy Separators v. Halliburton 4:14-cv-02081), contract (Garner v. Axip Energy 4:24-cv-03300), trust (Langston v. Dominey 4:25-cv-02805), and employment (Elizondo v. Keppel Amfels 1:14-cv-00220). No quantitative nature-of-suit census computed this pass.