Frances H. Stacy
How Judge Stacy rules, drawn from 7 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Stacy no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Stacy
Frances H. Stacy served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas from February 1990 to February 2022. She earned both her undergraduate and law degrees from Baylor University and handled referred civil matters and consent cases.
How Judge Stacy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sysco Corporation v. Schmidt, Stacy found the former CFO's one-year noncompete reasonable in its geographic reach and scope of work, and found that his short stint as a competitor's CFO breached it.
“because the restrictions at issue in the 2016 and 2017 Protective Covenant Agreements are not overbroad, and are limited in geographic area, duration, and scope of work, the non-competition provisions at issue are reasonable, and are enforceable under Texas law.”
Procedural preferences
In Sysco Corporation v. Schmidt, Stacy recommended partial summary judgment after finding a breach, but left damages for further proceedings because Sysco offered no summary judgment evidence of the amount. She also found the forfeiture issue unbriefed.
“Sysco has pointed to no summary judgment evidence of any damages associated with Schmidt's breach ... Sysco is not entitled to summary judgment on the damages aspect of its breach of contract claim.”
Cautions
In Boulos's § 2255 case, Stacy recommended granting the government's motion to dismiss because the motion was filed over a year late and the record gave no ground for equitable tolling.
“Because Boulos’ § 2255 motion was not timely filed and because there are no grounds in the record for equitable tolling, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss as Time Barred should be granted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Amegy's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 21) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiffs' claims all be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 24) be GRANTED in PART ... and that the amount recoverable by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's breach of contract claim be left for further proceedings, including, if needed, a trial.”
“that Defendant's cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 29) be DENIED”
“the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Government's Motion to Dismiss as Time Barred (Document No. 255) be GRANTED”
“that Lion Boulos' 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Document No. 251) be DENIED, and that this 2255 proceeding be DISMISSED with prejudice as time-barred.”
“RECOMMENDS that Defendant Marlow Navigation Co. Ltd.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Document No. 18) be DENIED.”
“Based on that recommendation, and Defendant Schiffahrts’ reliance on the viability of Marlow’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, the Magistrate Judge further RECOMMENDS that Defendant HS Schiffahrts GmbH & Co. KG’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Document No. 19) also be DENIED.”
“RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 2) be GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s claims in this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Based on the reasons set forth above, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 13) be GRANTED and that Plaintiffs claims be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.”
“Having considered the Motions, and the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS, for the reasons set forth below, that Defendant Bayview's and MERS'S Motions to Dismiss both be GRANTED, and the Joint Motion to Abate Proceedings be DENIED as MOOT.”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Stacy was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2022.
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Stacy no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.