Lee Hyman Rosenthal
How Judge Rosenthal rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Rosenthal
Lee Hyman Rosenthal is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Rosenthal received a commission on May 13, 1992. Judge Rosenthal assumed senior status on December 1, 2024.
Judge Rosenthal's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Rosenthal, 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
Serve these procedures and the Rule 16 conference order with the summons and complaint or removal papers, and file proof of service.
“The plaintiff must serve these Procedures and the Order Scheduling Rule 16 Conference on all defendants and other parties, along with the summons and complaint. A party removing a case to this court has the same obligation as a plaintiff filing an original complaint. Proof of service of these materials must be filed.”
Discovery
Arrange a court conference before filing a motion or brief on a disputed discovery or pretrial issue.
“Any party wishing to raise disputed discovery or other pretrial matters must arrange for a conference with the court before filing any motion, briefs, or accompanying materials.”
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 Rosenthal decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On personal jurisdiction she demands TARGETED, suit-related contacts: selling products into Texas (even 100% of sales) through third-party platforms is 'fortuitous,' not purposeful availment, and foreseeable in-forum injury alone does not confer specific jurisdiction.
“minimum contacts must be targeted contacts, not merely fortuitous ones. ... CAP does not allege that the defendants have singled out the Texas market for their advertising or sales by their own acts”
Gross negligence is a high bar: minor speeding plus an ordinary driving misjudgment is not an 'extreme degree of risk,' and a record of minor parking-lot incidents is not an 'egregious driving record' supporting gross negligence in hiring.
“A driver is not grossly negligent merely because he fails to obey traffic laws or drives slightly over the speed limit. ... Moorer's miscalculation in changing lanes does not amount to gross negligence.”
Procedural preferences
In one scheduling order, she set a motion hearing and a status conference as part of the case’s docket-control schedule.
“SCHEDULING AND DOCKET CONTROL ORDER. ... Motion Hearing set for 9/8/2023 ... Status Conference set for 9/15/2023 ... (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal)”
In a case involving a deficient pro se complaint, she applied the Rule 15 principle that a plaintiff should ordinarily have a chance to amend before dismissal with prejudice, while considering whether amendment would be futile.
“When a plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim, the court should generally give the plaintiff at least one chance to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a) before dismissing the action with prejudice.”
In Houston Metro v. HCSC, she heard argument on several dismissal motions and a discovery dispute at an interim pretrial conference and resolved the motions in a short order referring to reasons stated on the record.
“The court held an interim pretrial conference in this case on October 24, 2017. The court heard oral argument from counsel on a number of pending motions to dismiss and a discovery dispute. For the reasons stated in detail on the record, the motions are resolved as follows ...”
In Century Next Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Rosenthal remanded after amendment but denied removal fees because the original complaint provided a reasonable basis for federal jurisdiction.
“Removal based on federal-question jurisdiction was reasonable. Century Next is not entitled to attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs.”
Cautions
In Norsworthy's employment case, Rosenthal denied reconsideration after finding that the offered materials did not qualify as newly discovered evidence and the claimed legal error did not warrant changing the judgment.
“A Rule 59(e) motion 'must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence' and 'cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.' ... The Rule 59(e) standard favors the denial of motions to alter or amend a judgment.”
In Lee v. Galland, Rosenthal rejected Lee's retaliation claim because Lee did not connect her ethics complaint to her demotion or firing; the record documented intervening performance and conduct issues.
“Lee’s retaliation claim fails because she has not shown that she was demoted, and then fired, because of her complaint against Galland.”
In Cap Barbell, she identified a misleading quotation from a hearing transcript in the plaintiff’s personal-jurisdiction argument and corrected it by examining the full exchange.
“CAP's allegation and its general personal jurisdiction argument is based on a misleading quotation from the transcript from the December 7 hearing.”
Pro se status is not a shield for meritless or repetitive litigation: after a litigant lost the same property dispute in state court, the Texas Court of Appeals, and a prior federal case, she denied 'another bite at the eviction-challenge apple.'
“pro se status does not provide an 'impenetrable shield,' 'for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the machinery with meritless litigation and abuse overloaded court dockets.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The motions to dismiss are granted. CAP's unfair competition, conversion, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment claims are dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“The motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. (Docket Entry No. 29). It is granted as to the plaintiffs' gross negligence claims. It is denied as to the other claims.”
“The defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Erinle must amend her complaint no later than January 7, 2011.”
“Judge Bennett recommended granting the motion for summary judgment filed by New Caney Independent School District ... The Memorandum and Recommendation of Judge Bennett is adopted as this court's Memorandum and Opinion.”
“Judge Bennett recommended granting ... the motion for summary judgment filed by the Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath ... The Memorandum and Recommendation of Judge Bennett is adopted as this court's Memorandum and Opinion.”
“Judge Bennett recommended ... granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss filed by the Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath ... The Memorandum and Recommendation of Judge Bennett is adopted as this court's Memorandum and Opinion.”
“Judge Bennett recommended ... denying the plaintiffs motion for judgment on the administrative record against New Caney Independent School District ... The Memorandum and Recommendation of Judge Bennett is adopted as this court's Memorandum and Opinion.”
“This court grants the motions to dismiss the amended complaint. (Docket Entry Nos. 24, 25, 33, 34). ... This case is dismissed, with prejudice, because further amendment would be futile.”
“The court denies the motion for leave to file the proposed second amended complaint because it does not cure the pleading deficiencies. (Docket Entry No. 37).”
This is a non-motion disposition. A pretrial-detainee Section 1983 complaint screened under 28 U.S.C. 1915A; after the plaintiff failed to file a court-ordered More Definite Statement, dismissed under Rule 41(b). The order states: "Searcy's civil rights action, (Docket Entry No. 1), is dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. All pending motions are denied as moot." Shows her screening practice: order a More Definite Statement with a questionnaire, warn of Rule 41(b), then dismiss without prejudice (Rule 60(b) relief available) if no compliance.
“Summary judgment for the School District is granted. Final judgment is separately entered.”
“Outback's motion for summary judgment, (Docket Entry No. 17), is denied.”
“The motion for reconsideration, (Docket Entry No. 39), is denied.”
“The motion for reconsideration is denied.”
“The Texas Department of Transportation's motion for summary judgment, (Docket Entry No. 83), is granted.”
“Lee's motion for summary judgment, (Docket Entry No. 79), is denied. Final judgment is separately entered.”
“The court grants the motion to dismiss. (Docket Entry No. 33). This case is dismissed, with prejudice, because further leave to amend would be futile.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 818 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 37 days (N = 22).
Judge Rosenthal's sampled docket spans employment and other civil-rights claims, insurance, contract, personal injury, and bankruptcy appeals. Among 15 selected cases filed in 2023-2024, twelve had ended and three remained pending when reviewed. Recent assignments also include immigration habeas petitions. These selected cases are illustrative of case mix and do not measure 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 | 1 |
| 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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Rosenthal: 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 Rosenthal with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Rosenthal, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Rosenthal's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace