Charles Robert Eskridge III
How Judge Eskridge rules, drawn from 34 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Eskridge
Charles R. Eskridge, III is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Eskridge received a commission on October 17, 2019.
Judge Eskridge's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Eskridge, 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
Plaintiffs must serve these procedures and the interested-persons disclosure order with the summons and complaint or removal papers.
“When serving the summons and complaint or removal papers, Plaintiff must serve these procedures together with the Order for Conference and Disclosure of Interested Persons.”
Discovery
Lead counsel must personally confer about discovery and scheduling disputes before involving the court.
“Lead counsel must personally confer on all discovery and scheduling disputes as a final attempt at resolution prior to involving the Court.”
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 Eskridge decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a choice-of-law dispute, he applied Texas law’s preference for enforcing contractual choice-of-law provisions and found that Morton had offered no authority showing a fundamental California policy requiring its usury law to govern the Texas bank’s commercial loan.
“Generally speaking, ‘Texas law favors the enforcement of contractual choice-of-law provisions.’ ... Morton provides the Court with no authority suggesting that it is a fundamental policy of California to apply its usury law to a commercial loan provided by a Texas bank to a Louisiana corporation and guaranteed by a Louisiana citizen.”
In a personal-jurisdiction dispute, he declined to consider a theory involving Klonopin or benzodiazepines because the complaint did not mention either.
“A reader of the complaint will nowhere discern this attenuated theory. The complaint doesn't mention either Klonopin specifically or benzodiazepines generally.”
Procedural preferences
On review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation, he sustained the plaintiffs’ objections in this case.
“The objections by Plaintiffs to the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are SUSTAINED.”
In Armstrong's ladder-injury suit, Eskridge denied the motion to exclude Peter Poczynok because the identified inconsistencies could affect his credibility before the jury but did not make his testimony inadmissible.
“inconsistencies between the testimony of Poczynok, the evidence, and expert testimony proffered by Wing Enterprises may affect Poczynok's credibility before the jury. But they don't render his testimony inadmissible.”
After dismissing Shenton’s complaint, he permitted a motion for leave to amend but required any proposed amendment to address the identified deficiencies and comply with Rule 11(b).
“Shenton will thus be permitted to seek leave to amend his complaint. But any such motion for leave must address the deficiencies and concerns identified above and will be subject to the dictates of Rule 11(b).”
Cautions
In a dismissal dispute, he declined to read into the complaint a new Klonopin theory that the plaintiffs first raised in their response brief.
“But only in their response to this motion -- and not in their complaint -- do they attempt to connect that claim to HLR via Klonopin. The request by the Rosens to read this new theory into the complaint isn't well-taken.”
In this case, he deemed Vanunu’s summary-judgment motion unopposed after Hunter failed to respond on time and granted the motion.
“The motion for summary judgment by Defendant Uval Vanunu is deemed to be unopposed for failure by Plaintiff Eric Hunter to timely respond. As such, it is granted.”
In Shenton’s case, he held that the complaint was facially time-barred because it pleaded no facts supporting equitable tolling beyond the conceded 779 days.
“Shenton here pleads no facts that would entitle him to equitable tolling apart from the conceded 779 days. It's therefore evident from the face of the complaint that the action is barred.”
In a summary-judgment dispute, he found Morton had waived a challenge by failing to identify supporting record evidence, applying the Fifth Circuit rule that courts need not sift the record for a party.
“The Fifth Circuit ‘has regularly reminded litigants that Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court ... a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment.’ The Court thus finds Morton to have waived challenge in this regard.”
In the August 2026 Jackson insurance ruling, pre-suit emails did not preserve attorney-fee recovery because they omitted the specific damage amount and accrued fees required by Texas Insurance Code §542A.003(b). A settlement demand alone did not fill those gaps.
“emails don’t constitute adequate presuit notice under §542A.003(b).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The motion by Plaintiff Group 1 Automotive Inc for leave to amend is GRANTED. Dkt 51.”
“The motion by Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company to strike or dismiss is DENIED. Dkt 55.”
“The motion by Defendant Wing Enterprises Inc to exclude the testimony of Peter Francis is DENIED. Dkt 97.”
“The motion by Defendant Wing Enterprises Inc to exclude the testimony of Peter Poczynok is DENIED. Dkt 98.”
“The motion by Defendant Wing Enterprises Inc for summary judgment is DENIED. Dkt 96.”
“The motion by Defendant EnSite USA Inc to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED. Dkt 16.”
“The motion by Defendant Hoffman-La Roche to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. Dkt 4.”
“The motion by Defendant Evanston Insurance Company for summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt 13.”
“The Court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment brought by Pierce Partners. As such, Morton must pay Pierce Partners: The full amount of the note, one million dollars; Interest calculated at eighteen percent; and Pierce Partners' reasonable attorney fees and costs.”
“The motion to dismiss by Defendants is GRANTED. Dkt 26. Defendant Sabrina Carpenter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant UMG Recordings, Inc, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.”
“The motion for summary judgment by Defendant Uval Vanunu is GRANTED. Dkt 38.”
“The related motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 31. A final judgment will enter separately dismissing this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“The Rule 54(b) motion by Plaintiff to vacate is DENIED. Dkt 48.”
“The motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 5. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“She there seeks to amend her complaint to add additional defendants from a prior state court action. ... The motion to enjoin all other entities from original state cases is DENIED. Dkt 10.”
“The motion by Defendants US Bank NA and Select Portfolio Servicing Inc for summary judgment on all claims by Plaintiff Carole A. Jones is GRANTED. Dkt 10. The claims brought by Plaintiff Carole A. Jones are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The motion by the United States of America to intervene and to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 46. The complaint by Plaintiff Amy C. Walden-Bing is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 347 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 210 days (N = 13).
- Judge Eskridge's sampled docket spans employment, consumer, insurance, contract, personal-injury, and civil-rights matters, along with an FTC merger challenge.
- In a targeted 15-case 2023-2024 filing sample, twelve cases had ended and three remained pending when reviewed.
- Recent assignments also include immigration habeas petitions.
- These selected cases illustrate case mix without measuring the full caseload.
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 | 2 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 13 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 19 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 14 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 24 | 19 |
| Sep 2021 | 29 | 12 |
| Mar 2021 | 19 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 24 | 4 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, not for Judge Eskridge: 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 Eskridge with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Eskridge, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Eskridge's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace