Jill N. Parrish
How Judge Parrish rules, drawn from 42 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Parrish
Jill N. Parrish is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Parrish received a commission on August 17, 2015.
Judge Parrish's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Parrish, 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.
- Practices & Procedures ↗
- Civil Standing Order ↗
- Criminal Standing Order ↗
- Civil Trial Order Example With Date Calculations ↗
Key rules
Filing
Email editable Word proposed orders to chambers in addition to 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 Word format.”
Filing
In covered civil cases, file a signed notice acknowledging the standing order within seven days.
“all counsel are required to file, within seven days, a Notice of Acknowledgment”
Filing
Provide a hard copy of exhibits supporting a summary judgment motion or response when filed.
“parties must supply the court with one hard copy of the exhibits supporting a motion for summary judgment or a response to a motion for summary judgment.”
Motions
Use a single dismissal or summary judgment motion rather than separate motions by claim.
“Litigants should file a single motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. Absent permission from the court, Judge Parrish does not allow the practice of filing a separate motion for each cause of action.”
Trial
File a criminal trial continuance motion at least three weeks before trial.
“ALL MOTIONS TO CONTINUE A CRIMINAL TRIAL MUST BE FILED AT LEAST THREE WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE.”
Trial
Judge Parrish’s civil trial order example calls for one jointly filed set of proposed jury instructions.
“The parties must jointly file with the Court a single set of the parties’ proposed jury instructions”
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 Parrish decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Nickleberry, Parrish suppressed evidence after finding that police had no reasonable community caretaking reason to impound a vehicle parked on private property. The record showed no consultation with the property owner or proof that impoundment alternatives were unavailable.
“the impoundment was not justified by a legitimate, community-caretaking rationale.”
In Lichfield’s fee dispute, she set a $500 hourly rate and 320 compensable hours, awarding $160,000 rather than the defendants’ requested amount.
“the court finds that a reasonable hourly rate in this case is $500 and that a reasonable number of hours to litigate the relevant motions is 320. Accordingly, a reasonable attorney fee award is $160,000.”
Procedural preferences
In Davis, Parrish held that pleading Utah’s Tier 3 damages category gave the defendants notice that the amount in controversy exceeded the federal diversity threshold. Their later notice of removal was untimely.
“pleading that an action qualifies as a Tier 3 case is equivalent to asserting $300,000 or more in damages”
In ICON Health, Parrish declined to enforce a shipping contract’s forum selection clause because the Carmack Amendment’s venue provisions governed the cargo damage dispute, including under the parties’ own contractual terms.
“NVC’s forum selection clause is preempted whether or not NVC is found to be a ‘carrier’ subject to the Carmack Amendment.”
Cautions
In Curium, a plausible description of protected trade secrets did not save the complaint. Parrish required facts showing actual or threatened misappropriation beyond former employees’ knowledge of the secrets and their move to a competitor.
“while Curium has plausibly alleged a trade secret, it has not plausibly alleged an actual or threatened trade secret misappropriation claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32, is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice (ECF No. 104) is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Duke Capital's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 82, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Pursuant to Plaintiffs' stipulation Duke Capital's motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Plaintiffs' intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment claims. With respect to Plaintiffs' remaining claims, Duke Capital's motion to dismiss is denied as untimely under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Van Rixel's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 79) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss this habeas corpus petition is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, Mr. Nickleberry's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED.”
“Before the court is plaintiffs Lorna and Jeffrey Davis's motion to remand this case to state court. ECF No. 12. The court GRANTS the motion.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES Lopez-Casillas's § 2255 Motion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Liberty's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART each motion to exclude. The parties must limit their expert testimony in accordance with the opinion laid out above.”
“(1) The court DENIES Cascade's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 22.”
“(2) The court DENIES Cascade's motion to strike. ECF no. 21.”
“(3) The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Cascade's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 22. The court grants summary judgment in favor of Cascade on all... [and] denies summary judgment in favor of Cascade on all other claims”
“(4) The court DENIES Rodriguez's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 17.”
“(5) The court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Rodriguez's motion for class certification. ECF No. 16. The court grants certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3). ... The court denies certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1201 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 97 days (N = 18).
The reviewed civil matters include ERISA benefits, securities enforcement, insurance, personal injury, employment and civil-rights disputes. A pending September 2026 immigration habeas matter supplied a recent motion timeline. This selected set describes subject matter and does not measure the frequency of case types or outcomes.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 17 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 23 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 27 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 27 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 24 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 21 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 22 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 29 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 28 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 18 |
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 Parrish: 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 Parrish with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Parrish, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Parrish's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace