Evelyn J. Furse
Judge Furse no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Furse decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On removed cases she enforces the federal-question/remand line strictly: an unlawful-detainer or other purely state-law claim presents no federal question on the face of the complaint, so the case is remanded -- but she separates the remand from a fee award, declining 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) fees where the removal, though wrong, was not objectively unreasonable.
“recommending that this court grant Holiday Village's Motion but deny its request for attorney's fees ... Judge Furse concluded that neither the original Complaint nor the Amended Complaint provided a basis for federal question jurisdiction.”
With pro se litigants she liberally construes pleadings but holds the jurisdictional line, recommending dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (including over tax claims against the IRS/United States) and for repleaded, already-dismissed matters that still fail to state a claim.
“the Amended Complaint realleges matters already dismissed, ... the court lacks jurisdiction over the tax-related claims, and ... the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief”
Cautions
Her dismissal recommendations carefully fix prejudice and grounds: jurisdictional dismissals come without prejudice, while a merits cross-MSJ for the defendant produced a dismissal with prejudice. Read each recommendation's disposition individually.
“dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“West Valley City's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED ... The above-captioned matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Mr. Timilsina's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“the February 2, 2016 Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Evelyn Furse recommending that this court grant Holiday Village's Motion but deny its request for attorney's fees. ... the court adopts it in full and orders that this case be remanded.”
“Likewise, the court agrees with Judge Furse that an award of attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) is not warranted at this time. ... The court declines to impose any award of attorney's fees or costs.”
“the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and Defendants Blum, Malmstrom and Trotter's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff Parker Malmstrom's claims against Nancy Trotter, Thomas Malmstrom, and David Blum are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on July 16, 2018, recommending that this case be dismissed. ... the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice.”
“Magistrate Judge Furse recommended that the court grant the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint 'because [1] the Amended Complaint realleges matters already dismissed, [2] the court lacks jurisdiction over the tax-related claims, and [3] the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim ...' ... the court ... AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Furse's recommendation in full, and dismisses Plaintiffs' action.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
With the parties' consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Judge Furse served as the final judge in a modest civil docket alongside a larger volume of referred matters. The reviewed consent cases include short-lived ADA accessibility suits, contract and consumer disputes, and Social Security disability appeals that she decided on the administrative record. This describes caseload composition and duration, not motion outcomes.
A historical record
Judge Furse no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.