Ruth Miller
Judge Miller no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Miller decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On motions to compel arbitration, broad or ambiguous arbitration-clause language is read in favor of arbitration, and a personal guarantor was bound to an arbitration clause his guaranty incorporated by reference even though the clause did not name him individually -- consistent with the strong federal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements.
On a third-party government subpoena, deferred heavily to the agency's own Touhy regulations and declined to compel decades-old, burdensome records where the requesting party already had the underlying admission on the record and had not shown the additional records would meaningfully change the analysis -- a caution that fishing-expedition style third-party discovery requests attract close scrutiny before this judge.
Procedural preferences
Discovery-extension and continuance requests must be tied to specific, material need: a Rule 56(f) continuance was denied because the movant sought discovery unrelated to the actual ground of the pending summary-judgment motion and could not explain a nearly six-month delay in seeking it, and a proposed protective order was rejected in its submitted form. Generic or untailored discovery requests do not automatically get more time.
Sanctions motions require a genuinely egregious, well-documented showing of bad faith: a section 1927 motion built on generalized, uncorroborated allegations was denied outright, while a Rule 37 fee request following two ignored discovery orders and multiple missed deadlines was granted -- but even then the hourly rate was capped at the court's own prior benchmark for the local market rather than the amount requested.
Cautions
Recommended dismissals of pro se complaints on jurisdictional or pleading grounds have twice been modified by the reviewing district judge on the prejudice/leave-to-amend question specifically (one section 1915 screening dismissal and one merits dismissal), even while the underlying jurisdictional or pleading analysis was adopted in full -- practitioners should not assume a recommended 'with prejudice' or no-leave-to-amend outcome is final until the adopting order issues.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction” (Dkt. No. 5) is DENIED.”
“The Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R and grant the Defendant's “Motion to Dismiss” (Dkt. No. 7) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“ORDERED that Defendants Lynn Millin Maduro and Alicia Barnes’ “Motion to Dismiss” (Dkt. No. 62) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff W. James Oelsner’s claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“In view of the foregoing, the Court will adopt the R&R in part and reject it in part. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, as to Counts I-VI and VIII-XI, and deny the Motion, as to Count VII.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to the Court (Dkt. No. 11) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in part and MODIFIED in part, it is further ORDERED that insofar as the Report and Recommendation would dismiss Francis’s complaint with prejudice, that portion of the Report and Recommendation is MODIFIED such that Francis’s complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Smith’s Rule 56(f) motion is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Hutchinson’s “Motion to Compel Arbitration & for Dismissal” [ECF 13] be GRANTED as follows: 1. Solar Leasing’s action against Hutchinson is STAYED.”
“Defendants’ motion [DE 166] to compel responses to deposition questions regarding plaintiff’s prior criminal conviction is GRANTED”
“Defendant’s motion for fees and costs under Rule 37(a)(5)(A) is DENIED.”
“it is hereby RECOMMENDED: 1. that default be entered against Nilson C. Perez”
“2. that the “Motion for Default Judgement [sic] as Per Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i)” [ECF 32] and “Motion to Amend 10/16/14 Motion (DE 32) For Default Judgement [sic] ... to Include FRCP Rules 55 and 4” [ECF 37] be DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the premises considered, it is ORDERED that the motion to compel CBP to comply with Ford’s subpoena [ECF 289] is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled dockets Miller was assigned or referred to span marine/admiralty contract and personal-injury disputes, mortgage-foreclosure actions, and a consent-jurisdiction breach-of-contract putative class action, consistent with the St. Thomas/St. John division's maritime- and financial-institution-heavy civil docket. Several older sampled dockets (2011-2015) returned no retained entry text in the record, typical of this court's older filings; the groundable motion history in this record is concentrated in cases from 2019 onward, including two full-consent (28 U.S.C. 636(c)) civil cases she presided over through final judgment or settlement.
A historical record
Judge Miller 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.