Clark Waddoups
How Judge Waddoups rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Waddoups
Clark Waddoups is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Waddoups received a commission on October 21, 2008. Judge Waddoups assumed senior status on January 31, 2019.
Judge Waddoups's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Waddoups, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Email proposed orders to chambers in editable Word or WordPerfect format as well as attaching them to the motion.
“In addition to attaching a copy of the order to the motion, a copy of all proposed orders must be directly e-mailed to chambers at the following address: [email protected]. Proposed orders e-mailed to chambers must be editable and submitted in either WordPerfect or Word format.”
Filing
Provide chambers courtesy copies of dispositive motion papers by the end of briefing.
“Courtesy copies of all dispositive motions, memoranda and exhibits are to be provided to chambers at the time of filing or no later than the conclusion of briefing.”
Trial
Pre-mark anticipated trial exhibits and provide both paper and electronic copies.
“All exhibits counsel anticipate will be used at trial are to be pre-marked and presented to the court in both hard copy and electronic media.”
Trial
Under Judge Waddoups’s civil jury pretrial order, a plaintiff must submit a notice of claims and elements 14 days before the final pretrial conference.
“The plaintiff, including any counter or cross claimant, shall submit a Pretrial Notice that states each cause of action the plaintiff is proceeding on at trial. The plaintiff also shall list all elements that must be proved for each cause of action, as well as the standard of proof for that claim. The plaintiff’s Pretrial Notice must be submitted to the court no later than fourteen (14) days before the Final Pretrial Conference.”
Trial
Under Judge Waddoups’s criminal pretrial order, exchange witness lists two business days before the final pretrial conference.
“The parties must exchange witness lists no later than two (2) business days before the final pretrial conference.”
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 9, 2026).
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: 53.5 days (N = 22).
The reviewed civil cases include arbitration enforcement, employment, insurance, civil-rights, patent and disability-related disputes. A pending 2026 criminal matter was inspected separately. These selected matters describe subject matter rather than the judge's overall case mix.
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 | 14 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 14 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 14 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 15 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 18 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 43 | 25 |
| Mar 2023 | 46 | 29 |
| Sep 2022 | 30 | 32 |
| Mar 2022 | 21 | 30 |
| Sep 2021 | 23 | 24 |
| Mar 2021 | 19 | 24 |
| Sep 2020 | 15 | 22 |
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 United States District Court for the District of Utah, not for Judge Waddoups: 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 | 1,120 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 343 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 764 | 9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 3 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 59 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,120 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,141 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,035 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,092 | 12.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,128 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 951 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,085 | 9.7 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 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