Robert J. Shelby
How Judge Shelby rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Shelby
Robert James Shelby is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Shelby received a commission on September 25, 2012.
Judge Shelby's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Shelby, 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
Deliver paper copies of dispositive motions and supporting papers directly to chambers when filing.
“Paper copies of all dispositive motions, memoranda, responses, and exhibits should be delivered directly to chambers at the time the document is filed.”
Filing
Email an editable proposed order to chambers when filing a motion.
“The proposed order should be emailed to [email protected]. Proposed orders emailed to chambers must be editable and in word processing format.”
Motions
Judge Shelby will generally allow the other side a brief opportunity to respond before setting a TRO hearing.
“Absent extraordinary circumstances, Judge Shelby will not set a TRO hearing without allowing a brief opportunity for the opposing party or counsel to respond.”
Trial
Under Judge Shelby’s civil trial order, the plaintiff must file a joint proposed pretrial order at least seven days before the final pretrial conference.
“No less than seven (7) days before the final pretrial conference, plaintiff is to file a joint proposed pretrial order”
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 Shelby decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an ERISA and mental-health-parity case, Judge Shelby dismissed only the conceded, unexhausted portion of the claims while leaving the remaining facility-related claims intact.
“the court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice insofar as it relates to Plaintiffs' claims for F.C.'s treatment at Elements. Plaintiffs' claims stemming from F.C.'s treatment at Catalyst under ERISA and the MHPAEA remain intact. ... For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
In a sports-event contract dispute, Judge Shelby granted state officials summary judgment after finding that federal commodities law did not displace Utah’s gambling enforcement.
“The court concludes the CEA does not preempt Utah’s enforcement of its anti-gambling laws against Kalshi. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
In an immigration detention habeas case, he ordered a new bond hearing and required the government to show flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence.
“At the bond hearing, Respondents will bear the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that Leon is either a flight risk or a danger to the community.”
Procedural preferences
In consolidated tithing litigation, the court stayed discovery under ordinary docket-management factors and declined to reach an unnecessary constitutional issue at that stage.
“Now before the court is Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the court's resolution of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the Motion. ... all case management-related requirements and deadlines applicable to this matter ... remain stayed until the court resolves Defendants' Motions to Dismiss”
In one case, he denied leave to file summary judgment five months after the dispositive-motion deadline because counsel’s mistake did not show excusable neglect and the late filing would disrupt an imminent trial.
“inadvertence does not establish excusable neglect, and the Motion for Leave fails to provide a sufficient justification beyond mere mistake.”
Cautions
In a settlement-enforcement dispute, the court relied on the agreement's execution language and the parties' conduct to find no binding oral settlement, granting one summary-judgment motion and denying the other.
“Kendall's motion for summary judgment on the City's counterclaim is granted. The City's motion is denied. The City's counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice.”
In a dispute over security monitoring services, Judge Shelby enforced the contract’s allocation of burglary risk and granted summary judgment on tort claims because the plaintiff showed no separate duty of care.
“Because Garff fails to establish that Netwatch owes a separate and distinct duty of care apart from those agreed upon in the contract, the contractual relationship controls. The economic loss rule bars Garff’s tort claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice insofar as it relates to Plaintiffs' claims for F.C.'s treatment at Elements. Plaintiffs' claims stemming from F.C.'s treatment at Catalyst under ERISA and the MHPAEA remain intact. ... For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“the Valentines' Motion to Amend is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the court affirms its finding that the damages to the Valentines' home are not covered because the Valentines and Alpine Design did not comply with two of the Policy's provisions. However, the court finds it erred in dismissing the Valentine's breach of fiduciary duty claim and reverses its grant of summary judgment on that claim.”
“Kendall's motion for summary judgment on the City's counterclaim is granted. The City's motion is denied. The City's counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Now before the court is Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the court's resolution of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the Motion. ... all case management-related requirements and deadlines applicable to this matter ... remain stayed until the court resolves Defendants' Motions to Dismiss”
“the court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, is entitled to costs in the amount of $5,710.09 ... Plaintiff is also entitled to a total attorney fee award of $275,919.36, calculated by taking the total requested amount of $375,863.86 and subtracting $2,765 for time spent on the failed mediation, $2,645 for time spent on the short form discovery motion, $665 for the issues related to Ted Hansen's testimony, $83,012.50 for time spent on the Motions in Limine, and $10,857 for having completely redacted various time entries.”
“the court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and DENIES as moot the Preliminary Injunction Motion”
“DENIES as moot the Preliminary Injunction Motion”
“the court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss”
“GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.”
“is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and may be resubmitted after the January 17, 2025 fact-discovery”
“Having reviewed the Motion and associated briefing, the court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.”
“King's lack-of-notice claim is dismissed with prejudice. As no claims survive, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the Motion to Set Aside 23 and DENIES as moot the Motion for Default Judgment. 24”
“For the reasons explained below, the court DENIES the Motion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 126 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 136.5 days (N = 16).
Judge Shelby carries a general civil and criminal docket. The sampled matters include employee benefits and mental-health-parity claims, insurance coverage, copyright, commercial contracts, Social Security appeals, prisoner civil-rights cases, post-conviction motions, and criminal cases. The sample describes subject matter rather than the frequency of any outcome.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 15 | 12 |
| Mar 2023 | 19 | 12 |
| Sep 2022 | 15 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 14 | 17 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 8 | 15 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 21 |
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 Shelby: 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 Shelby with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Shelby, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Shelby's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace