George P. Kazen

How Judge Kazen rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Kazen no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Position
District judge
Status
Deceased
Served
1979–2018
Appointed by
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Commissioned
May 11, 1979
Education
University of Texas (B.B.A., 1960); University of Texas School of Law (J.D., 1961)
Signed orders read
28

About Judge Kazen

George P. Kazen was a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter, Judge Kazen received a commission on May 11, 1979. Judge Kazen assumed senior status on May 31, 2009 and retired on March 9, 2018.

How Judge Kazen decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In MFC v. Wright-Bernet, Kazen dismissed a lost-profits counterclaim at summary judgment because the claimant offered no objective facts, such as lost contracts or profit figures, to support its projection.

“Wright-Bernet has produced no objective facts to establish this claim. There has been ample time for Wright-Bernet to produce the evidence necessary to establish this claim. Accordingly, the claim for lost profits will be dismissed.”

In Velasquez v. Wells Fargo, Kazen dismissed Texas Debt Collection Act claims because the borrower knew the debt, amount, and default; the alleged loan-modification statements did not misrepresent the debt's character or amount.

“At all times, Plaintiff knew that she had a mortgage debt, the amount that she owed, and that she had defaulted. The alleged misrepresentations do not constitute a claim under the TDCA and accordingly must be DISMISSED.”

Procedural preferences

In Eliserio v. Floydada Housing Authorities, Kazen accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation while reminding defendants that their Rule 12(b)(6) motion had to be decided on the pleadings rather than outside affidavits.

“these Defendants are reminded that Judge Saldana was considering a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and also a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. The latter type motion is to be decided entirely on the pleadings.”

Cautions

In Leza, Kazen found the City's summary judgment evidence insufficient to shift the burden on a municipal liability claim. He withheld judgment on that claim and ordered Leza to produce colorable evidence of an official policy by a deadline.

“While the Court considers Detective Rodriguez's deposition testimony alone as insufficient to satisfy the City's initial burden on summary judgment, there remains a serious question whether Leza has a viable claim against the City. ... Leza is ORDERED to produce some colorable evidence of an official policy capable of subjecting the City to liability under 1983.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Hinojosa v. CCA Properties of America, LLC
5:07-cv-00097 · 2010-01-12
Summary judgment (defendant (employer)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS CCA's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 45.)”

Velasquez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
5:13-cv-00196 · 2014-05-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant (mortgagee)) Granted

“Defendant Wells Fargo Bank's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 (Dkt. 4) is GRANTED as to all claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Defendant's request for attorneys' fees is DENIED.”

Leza v. City of Laredo
5:09-cv-00065 · 2011-05-26
Summary judgment (defendant (municipality + city manager)) Granted in part

“Having considered the parties' briefs, the evidence, and the applicable law, Defendants' motion is GRANTED in part. ... Leza's due process claims against the City of Laredo and Carlos Villarreal are DISMISSED. Leza's Fourth Amendment claims against Villarreal are also DISMISSED. With respect to the Fourth Amendment claims against the City, Leza is ORDERED to produce some colorable evidence of an official policy capable of subjecting the City to liability under 1983.”

Eliserio v. Floydada Housing Authorities
5:05-cv-00004 · 2008-03-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant (federal / USDA)) Granted in part

“Magistrate Judge Saldana's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. The Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 78) is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs 'enforcement claim' and 'loan approval claim' but otherwise DENIED.”

MFC Ltd. v. Wright-Bernet, Inc.
5:00-cv-00022 · 2005-09-28
Summary judgment (plaintiff (movant on defendant's counterclaim)) Granted in part

“MFC's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED to the extent discussed in this Memorandum. ... Accordingly, the claim for lost profits will be dismissed. ... Accordingly, the unjust enrichment claim will be dismissed.”

Garcia v. City of Laredo, Texas
5:12-cv-00117 · 2014-01-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“1) The following causes of action are DISMISSED without prejudice: - The First Cause of Action against both Defendants; - The Fourth and Sixth Causes of Action against Maldonado. 2) The following causes of action are not dismissed and therefore will proceed for now: - The Second through Sixth Causes of Action against the City. 3) For the following causes of action, the Court defers a decision: - The Second, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action against Maldonado; - The Seventh Cause of Action against both Defendants.”

Harvest Credit Management, L.L.C. v. Galindo
5:06-cv-00174 · 2007-01-15
Motions to remand (third-party defendant) Granted

“As removal of this case was untimely, the Motion to Remand is GRANTED. The Court therefore need not address Galindo's second contention, that filing motions in state court also constituted waiver of the right to remove.”

U.S.A. v. $43,133.00 (Forty-Three Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars) United States Currency
5:08-cv-00097 · 2010-02-03
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Government's motion for default judgment (Dkt. 18).”

Thomas v. United States of America
5:09-cv-00140 · 2009-05-02
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Accordingly, his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, now construed as a petition under §2241, shall be DISMISSED.”

Pena v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
5:13-cv-00029 · 2013-08-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons given above, the Court GRANTS the Bank's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Accordingly, the case shall be dismissed.”

Gonzalez Martinez, et al. v. Servicios de Transportacion, M.G., S.A. de C.V., et al.
5:05-cv-00060 · 2007-02-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The Court finds it does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Servicios de Transportacion, M.G., S.A. de C.V., and will order that it be dismissed from this case.”

United States v. Robert K. Kirkland
5:05-cr-00456 · 2007-01-24
Motion to withdraw guilty plea (defendant) Denied

“Weighing the foregoing factors, and for all the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the motion to withdraw the guilty plea in this case.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 154.0 days (N = 14).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 257.5 days (N = 2).

Several 2017-filed cases terminated exactly on 2018-03-09, Kazen's retirement date (e.g. Gonzalez v. State Farm, both Carmona matters), consistent with administrative closure/reassignment of his remaining docket at retirement rather than merits dispositions; these are reported as caseload metadata only, not characterized as rulings.

A historical record

Judge Kazen no longer hears cases. 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.