Clark Waddoups
How Judge Waddoups rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Waddoups decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed constitutional challenge, the court preserved the valid portion of the statute by striking the unconstitutional cohabitation language and adopting a narrowing construction of the remaining terms.
“The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it. As a result, and to save the Statute, the court adopts the interpretation of ‘marry’ and ‘purports to marry,’ and the resulting narrowing construction of the Statute, offered by the dissent in State of Utah v. Holm”
In the reviewed dismissal decision, the court separated federal and state securities theories rather than treating them together, dismissing the federal claims while allowing the Utah claims to proceed.
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ securities law claims is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. a. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for relief under federal law is GRANTED. b. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for relief under Utah law is DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
For expert testimony on a regulated device, the reviewed ruling permitted an opinion grounded in physical examination and laboratory evidence but excluded testimony that would instruct the jury on the statutory legal definition.
“The court therefore concludes that Eggleston may testify that in his opinion the device was a destructive device. Eggleston may not testify, however, that ‘[e]xplosive bombs are destructive devices as that term is defined in [26 U.S.C. § 5845(f)].’ The latter testimony is inadmissible because it constitutes an instruction to the jury that an explosive bomb meets the legal definition of a destructive device.”
In the reviewed employment case, the court granted reconsideration after determining that its earlier pretext analysis had misapprehended a cited case and had not given sufficient weight to the broader body of controlling circuit precedent.
“The court now concludes that it misapprehended Olson and did not give sufficient attention to the more robust body of pretext precedent in the Tenth Circuit.”
Cautions
A prisoner’s preference for more or different treatment did not establish deliberate indifference in the reviewed case where the record showed repeated access to medical professionals and treatment for the reported symptoms.
“Plaintiff’s whole point is that he, as an unqualified layperson, wanted more or different treatment from a medical professional, Defendant Tubbs. Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that Defendant Tubbs, with full knowledge of the deleterious effects of his actions or inactions, outright ignored or even exacerbated any possible serious medical needs of Plaintiff.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 49) ... The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it ... adopts the ... narrowing construction of the Statute, offered by the dissent in State of Utah v. Holm.”
“and DENIES Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 55).”
“GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ... securities law claims ... GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... FLSA minimum wage and overtime claims is DENIED ... FLSA retaliation claim is GRANTED ... contract claims is DENIED ... unjust enrichment claim is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. This case is CLOSED.”
“Plaintiff's claims are time-barred, and are accordingly dismissed with prejudice. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Huggard's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Respondents' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 35.) This action is CLOSED.”
“Cyber Operations has established that there are genuine disputes of material fact that preclude judgment in Mr. Williams' favor. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Mr. Williams' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 35) is therefore DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs have therefore failed to show that Airplanes West has made such minimum contacts with Utah in order to satisfy the court of its jurisdiction. ... Defendant Airplanes West's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' effort to obtain these proceeds—pre- or post-receipt is preempted. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“The Court therefore denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 18.) Defendant must move to the next stage of litigation.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 22), and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion to Deny Amendment to Pleadings, (Dkt. No. 27).”
“CitiMortgage's motion to remand and for attorney fees (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED. The court remands this case to the state court and directs CitiMortgage to submit briefing as to the amount of costs and fees it incurred seeking remand.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 98 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 312 days (N = 1).
- Waddoups is a senior Salt Lake City district judge commissioned in 2008 and on senior status since January 31, 2019.
- His active-era docket included constitutional litigation concerning Utah's bigamy statute, American Samoa birthright citizenship in Fitisemanu, which the Tenth Circuit later reversed, and immigration law.
- The 2017-2019 sample also includes patent, diversity contract and insurance, Social Security, tax, public-accommodations, product-liability, wage-and-hour, and pro se prisoner civil-rights cases.
- This describes caseload composition rather than a grant rate.
Draft for Judge Waddoups with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Waddoups, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Waddoups's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace