Christina A. Bryan
How Judge Bryan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In pro se foreclosure suits she dismisses quiet-title/wrongful-foreclosure claims absent a 'grossly inadequate' sale price; a sale near fair market value (here ~83.75% of appraised value) defeats wrongful foreclosure, and a borrower who cannot show tendered performance cannot maintain breach of contract.
“Even if Plaintiff could show defects in the foreclosure proceedings, he cannot establish the second and third elements. Plaintiff has not alleged that the property was sold for a grossly inadequate selling price. ... the third party purchaser at the foreclosure sale paid approximately 83.75% of the latest appraised value.”
Procedural preferences
Strictly enforces removal jurisdiction: places the burden on the removing party, screens removals sua sponte, remands for lack of SMJ or untimeliness, and will recommend monetary sanctions against parties who improperly remove the same case more than once.
“recommending that (i) this case be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and (ii) Defendants be sanctioned $500.00 because this is the second time they have improperly removed this case from state court.”
Cautions
Liberally construes pro se pleadings but still requires factual plausibility beyond the speculative level, and denies leave to amend as futile once a plaintiff has pled his best case (especially after frivolous/stricken filings).
“leave to amend is unnecessary if plaintiffs have pled their best case after having been apprised of the deficiencies in their pleading, or if amendment would be futile. ... the Court finds it would be futile to grant leave to amend in this case.”
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.
| Motion to compel arbitration N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for judgment on pleadings N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Preliminary injunction N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan, recommending that the motion by Defendant be granted. Dkt 17. ... The motion by Defendant to compel arbitration and dismiss the case is GRANTED. Dkt 8. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in favor of arbitral proceedings.”
“She recommends that the motion for summary judgment be granted because Nesbitt has failed to raise a triable issue of fact demonstrating any current right, title, or ownership in the property after the foreclosure sale. ... The motion by Defendants Wells Fargo and Select Portfolio Servicing for summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt 23. Summary judgment is also sua sponte granted in favor of Defendant Jelinis LLC.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Rule 12(c) Motion for Dismissal be GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court recommends that Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and for writ of possession be denied ... In sum, Plaintiff's Petition and Motion for a TRO should be DENIED.”
Bryan's M&R recommended remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no party motion to remand -- a sua sponte jurisdictional remand of a pro se removal) plus a $500 sanction because the defendants had improperly removed the same case a second time. District Judge Charles Eskridge adopted it, overruling defendants' objections on de novo review. EXCLUDED from motion stats (non-motion disposition); counts as an order read. Shows strict enforcement of removal jurisdiction and willingness to sanction repeat improper removers.
Bryan's M&R recommended dismissing a pro se bankruptcy appeal (from an order granting relief from the automatic stay) for want of prosecution (appellant never paid the filing fee or took steps to proceed). District Judge Charles Eskridge adopted it (no objections). EXCLUDED from motion stats (non-motion disposition); counts as an order read.