Charlene Edwards Honeywell
How Judge Honeywell decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Will not make credibility determinations at summary judgment. In Miller v. Ginny's, where a plaintiff's sworn affidavit of oral TCPA-consent revocation conflicted with a creditor's call logs containing no revocation notation, she denied summary judgment and sent the dispute to the jury. Practice signal: do not move for summary judgment on a record that requires the court to credit one declarant over another.
“Credibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences form the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict.”
Four-corners discipline on Rule 12(b)(6) in Medical & Chiropractic v. Oppenheim: struck extrinsic exhibits appended to a reply and declined to convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, telling defendants to raise the materials on a proper Rule 56 motion instead.
“In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the district court may consider an extrinsic document if it is (1) central to the plaintiffs claim, and (2) its authenticity is not challenged.”
Emergency relief does not cure a defective pleading. In Lead Creation, she first denied an ex parte TRO without prejudice and dismissed the complaint because every count incorporated all preceding allegations and counts. After an amended pleading, she granted a fourteen-day TRO with a $10,000 bond, asset restraint, and expedited discovery.
“This form of pleading is exactly the type repeatedly condemned by the Eleventh Circuit.”
A challenge to discretionary agency action needs concrete allegations that binding procedures were violated. In Onyenanu, conclusory process allegations earned one chance to amend; the amended complaint still failed because its exhibits showed that the agency explained its decision and the requested merits review was jurisdictionally barred.
“Plaintiff’s allegations fall short.”
Cautions
In Byrnes v. Small, she admonished plaintiff's counsel under ABA Model Rule 3.3 for misrepresenting service and denial dates that were material to the remand analysis.
“The Court will not tolerate any further misrepresentations such as this one, which evinces, at best, a reckless disregard of the duty of candor to the Court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and Authorize Notice to Putative Opt-In Plaintiffs and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 108) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and the First-Filed Action Doctrine or, in the Alternative, to Stay (Doc. 31) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Strike all References to Materials Outside of the Complaint in Defendants' Reply (Doc. 61) is GRANTED. Exhibits A-C of Defendants Reply (Doc. 59) is STRICKEN.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Doc. 21) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Marguerite Miller's Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 24) is DENIED.”
“The Court, having considered the parties submissions and being fully advised in the premises, will grant, in part, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all claims pertaining to the May 1, 2013 fax. In all other respects, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be denied.”
“The Court, having considered the motions and being fully advised in the premises, will grant the motions.”
“In the motion, Plaintiff contends that class certification should be granted because the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been met. The Court, having considered oral arguments, the parties' submissions, and being fully advised in the premises will deny the motion.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 43) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants' motion to dismiss Count III of the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED without prejudice, and Beardsley's motion to dismiss counts IV and V against him is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II is DENIED with respect to both UNATION and Beardsley, and is DENIED with respect to Counts IV and V against UNATION.”
“Defendants' Cirrus Design Corporation and Cirrus Industries, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 66, 27 (as to the Skinners)) is GRANTED. Defendant Kavlico Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. 78, 38 (as to the Skinner Plaintiffs)) is GRANTED. Defendants Cirrus Design Corporation, Cirrus Industries, Inc. and Kavlico Corporation are DISMISSED from this case.”
“Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 57) is DENIED; Defendants' Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 67) is DENIED; and Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 68) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 73) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 77) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 102) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed Tampa matters include numerous False Claims Act and criminal cases, while the later terminated-case sample adds habeas, immigration, premises-liability removal, consumer-default, and patent emergency-relief disputes. The mix is descriptive rather than a complete measure of Honeywell's caseload.
Put Judge Honeywell's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Honeywell actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Honeywell's own signed orders and cites them.