Beverly Baldwin Martin
Judge Martin no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Martin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Martin required a clear statutory duty before using mandamus to compel agency action.
“Given the divergent positions taken by federal courts on this issue, this court will not pronounce that a duty to act on the part of the USCIS is so ‘clear’ as to justify relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361.”
She refused to let a payment clause defeat a subcontractor’s federal Miller Act remedy.
“A contract provision that would deny the subcontractor its federal remedy under the Act cannot be used as a defense by a surety.”
She treated withholding post-appeal medical reports from an ERISA claimant as inconsistent with meaningful review.
“[tjhere can hardly be a meaningful dialogue between the claimant and the Plan administrators if evidence is revealed only after a final decision.”
Procedural preferences
Martin generally decided a pleading challenge on the papers where a hearing would not change the Rule 12 analysis.
“there is little that a hearing could do to alter the court's analysis or affect its evaluation of the parties' arguments from their numerous and lengthy briefs.”
She declined transfer where it would only move the inconvenience from one party to another.
“transferring venue from this court to the Northern District of Oklahoma would simply shift the inconvenience from the plaintiff to the defendant.”
Cautions
Martin awarded fees after concluding that a claim continued through summary judgment without evidentiary support.
“That Black continued to press his claim through summary judgment can only be attributed to a bad faith effort to run up attorneys’ fees and costs in hopes of a last minute settlement or to a similarly bad faith gamble that the claim might proceed to trial despite its lack of merit.”
She warned parties against technical objections while disregarding filing rules that could prejudice an opponent.
“Defendants persist in making petty objections on matters such as the authentication of an obviously admissible document, while simultaneously flouting the Local Rules in a manner that could actually prejudice its adversary.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because Plaintiff has failed to establish a basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction over this action, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff MeKenney’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 35] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff McKenney’s Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default [Doc. No. 37] is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, UnumProvi-dent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 4] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Set Aside Court’s Judgment Awarding Costs to Equinox Financial Management Solutions, Inc. [Doc. No. 168] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as set forth herein.”
“Defendant Equinox’s Countermotion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) [Doc. No. 170] is also GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Kate Aspen’s Motion for TRO [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED.”
“Kate Aspen’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 5] is also DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Jeffrey A. Bryan’s motion for review and reconsideration [Doc. No. 12-1] is hereby DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 24] is DENIED.”
“As such, Mr. Knowlin’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“Margaret H. Murphy and Thomas W. Thrash’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED [Doc. No. 4-1], and the alternative motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 4-2] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Likewise, Jeffrey A. Bryan’s motion to strike the defendants’ motion [Doc. No. 7-1] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, Amick’s motion for leave to amend his complaint [Doc. No. 9-1] is hereby GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED; Defendant Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 8] is GRANTED; Defendant Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice [Doc. No. 9] is GRANTED; and Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order [Doc. No. 13] is GRANTED.”
“Therefore, Cranford Transportation Service, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 21-1] is GRANTED.”
“Also, Brenda P. Brown’s unopposed motion to file original discovery [Doc. No. 18-1] is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled historical cases included employment, insurance, wage, civil-rights, immigration, Social Security, copyright, personal-injury, and student-loan matters. Nine timelines were empty archival shells; the Bogle employment case retained a detailed record.
A historical record
Judge Martin 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.