🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

William Simon Duffey Jr.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia district Retired 2018 · served 2004–2018 Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 15 signed orders read

Judge Duffey no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Duffey decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Duffey required a negligence theory arising from a contract dispute to identify a legal duty independent of the contract itself.

“Plaintiff quotes the general standard for gross negligence6 but does not identify any non-contractual legal duty that Defendant violated by incorrectly installing the water bug.”

At the pleading stage, he required the government to connect an asserted interest to the challenged law with concrete reasoning rather than conclusory claims.

“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint does not address how Georgia’s asserted interests in child welfare and procreation are advanced by the State’s prohibition on same-sex marriages, and the State’s refusal to recognize lawful marriages performed in other States.”

Procedural preferences

Duffey treated a shotgun complaint as independently sufficient grounds for dismissal when its incorporated allegations obscured which facts supported each claim.

“Plaintiff's Complaint is an impermissible ‘shotgun pleading’ that fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and dismissal is warranted on this basis alone.”

He expected parties to comply with the court’s page and type certifications even when their requests for extra pages were otherwise unopposed.

“The Court notes that Defendants have failed to certify that their briefs meet the page and type limitations of Local Rule 5.IB. Such certification is required by Local Rule 7.D.”

Cautions

Duffey rejected a late summary-judgment filing where the party delayed after discovering its omission.

“Plaintiff's delay is unreasonable.”

He scrutinized expert compensation arrangements that appeared contingent on a party’s recovery.

“The Court is troubled by Fey's deposition testimony that she would receive $650 per hour for her work as an expert witness, and that she would receive this payment only if Plaintiff recovers money in this action.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Williamson v. Travelport, LP
1:17-cv-00406 · 2018-01-10
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [19] is GRANTED”

Motion for oral argument (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Oral Argument on her Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [21] is DENIED AS MOOT .”

Allstate Insurance Co. v. ADT, LLC
1:15-cv-00517 · 2016-07-01
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant ADT, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim [9] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”

Capital Security Systems, Inc. v. NCR Corp.
1:14-cv-01516 · 2017-06-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant NCR Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity[162] is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART!”

Motion to seal (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Motions for Leave to File Matters Under Seal [161], [180] are GRANTED.”

Motion to seal (defendant) Granted
Tenet Healthsystem GB, Inc. v. Care Improvement Plus South Central Insurance
· 2016-02-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Care Improvement Plus South Central Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint [9] is GRANTED.”

Andrews v. Autoliv Japan, Ltd.
1:14-cv-03432 · 2017-01-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Autoliv Japan, Ltd.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [224] is GRANTED.”

Durden v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
· 2017-02-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [24] is GRANTED.”

Jones v. Golden Rule Insurance Co.
1:16-cv-03678 · 2017-08-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Golden Rule Insurance Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment [9] is GRANTED.”

Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. v. XL Specialty Insurance
· 2014-03-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED [6].”

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Mannion
· 2014-07-01
Motion for voluntary dismissal (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss [138] is GRANTED.”

Motion for imposition of remedies (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs Motion for Imposition of Remedies [144] is STAYED pending the August 19, 2014, evidentiary hearing”

Inniss v. Aderhold
· 2015-01-08
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [29, 42] the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Class Action Complaint is DENIED.”

Fey v. Panacea Management Group LLC
· 2017-05-18
Motion for leave to file (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to file Plaintiffs Local Rule 56.1(B)(2) Response to Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Plaintiffs Local Rule 56.1(B)(2)(b) Statement of Additional Material Facts [42] is DENIED.”

Daubert motion (defendants) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Daubert Motion to Exclude Proposed Expert Testimony of Anna Fey [31] is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [32] is GRANTED.”

Calvert v. Hicks
· 2007-01-18
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [69] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”

Motion to exceed page limits (defendants) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Exceed Page Limitation [68] and Plaintiffs Motion to Permit Him to Extend the Page Limit for His response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [75] are GRANTED.”

Motion to exceed page limits (plaintiff) Granted

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled cases included insurance, consumer-credit, housing, patent, civil-rights, ERISA, habeas, and contract matters.

A historical record

Judge Duffey 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.