Marvin Herman Shoob
Judge Shoob no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Shoob decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Shoob treated the administrative record, rather than a new judicial investigation, as the focal point of deferential agency review.
“The role of the court is not to conduct its own investigation and substitute its own judgment for the administrative agency’s decision.”
He enforced contractual suit limits absent conduct that reasonably induced the insured to believe the deadline had been enlarged.
“Waiver of a contractual limitation on suit requires some affirmative promise, statement, or other act, or some actual or constructive fraud, to lead plaintiff into believing that defendant intended to enlarge on the limitation period contained in the contract.”
Procedural preferences
Shoob denied late amendment when it would reopen discovery and prolong the litigation without justification.
“The Court concludes that allowing plaintiffs to amend the complaint at this procedural juncture would prejudice defendant by unreasonably protracting this litigation.”
He required express retention of jurisdiction or incorporation of settlement terms before enforcing an agreement after dismissal.
“a motion to enforce settlement is not appropriate after dismissal of an action unless the dismissal order adopts the settlement agreement or retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.”
Cautions
Shoob looked to ordinary statutory meaning before considering post-enactment or extrinsic evidence.
“The ordinary signification of ‘public transportation’ does not include airports.”
Where the administrative record could not support the challenged result, he found remand pointless and ordered reversal.
“But the Court concludes that a remand would be pointless, for the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the Council’s decision.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss [# 7-1]”
“GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment [# 7 — 2]”
“the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings [# 24]”
“DISMISSES AS MOOT defendants’ counterclaim.”
“the Court GRANTS plaintiffs second motion for summary judgment [# 72] as to rescission”
“DISMISSES AS MOOT Count II of the complaint seeking declaratory judgment.”
“The Court also DENIES plaintiffs request for oral argument [# 73].”
“the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion to enforce settlement.”
“the Court DENIES the motion of defendant City of Atlanta for a stay pending appeal.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED”
“defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“the Memorandum of Opinion and Order entered in this action on February 24, 1984, shall be, and hereby is, vacated and shall have no precedential effect.”
“The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART respondent’s motion to alter and amend its order filed January 27, 1989”
“the Court DENIES respondent’s motion for a stay pursuant to Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”
“the Court DENIES respondent’s motion for certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“the Court GRANTS plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
“defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to defendant Saunders but is DENIED as to all other defendants”
“The Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to amend”
“DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss”
“DENIES defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
“plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED”
“defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The three cross-referenced dockets involved immigration review, civil-rights statutory interpretation, and professional-liability insurance. They were evidence-selected and do not represent a complete caseload sample.
A historical record
Judge Shoob 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.