Kevin S.C. Chang
How Judge Chang decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Chang declined to enforce a warranty disclaimer when the record did not establish the buyer’s awareness and the text itself was inconspicuous.
“Even if Plaintiff was aware of the disclaimer, the disclaimer itself is not conspicuous.”
He treated innocent-intervenor status as defeating fee liability under the civil-rights fee statute.
“finds that CFV is not liable for fees under § 1988(b) and declines to recommend an award of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs.”
Procedural preferences
He reduced fee requests when block billing prevented meaningful review of the time claimed.
“The use of block billing here makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to determine the reasonableness of the hours expended with respect to specific time entries.”
He favored remand where federal adjudication would require resolving unsettled state-law questions unnecessarily.
“the factor of avoiding needless determination of state law issues weighs in favor of declining jurisdiction.”
Cautions
For transfer motions, he weighed the practical location of parties and witnesses heavily.
“it is clear that the majority of witnesses and parties reside in Mississippi or on the mainland.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees, filed April 14, 2010, and award Plaintiffs $20,929.57 in attorneys’ fees.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, this Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Bill of Costs, filed December 14, 2010, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court recommends that the district court award Defendant $26,439.85 in costs.”
“The Court accordingly RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Transfer and ORDER transfer of this action to the Northern District of Mississippi.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, filed December 21, 2012, and award Defendant $16,560.39 in attorneys’ fees and $14.10 in costs.”
“The Court denies the United States’ request for the imposition of sanctions against Defendants based on the findings presented by the Special Master in the Eleventh Report.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT Plaintiffs Motion for Remand, filed February 27, 2008.”
“In accordance vrith the aforementioned discussion, this Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Related Nontaxable Expenses, filed December 30, 2013, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court recommends that the district court award Plaintiff $30,936.11 in attorneys’ fees.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, filed November 1, 2010, be DENIED.”
“The court therefore RECOMMENDS that the Petition be DENIED with prejudice.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES AS MOOT 1) Defendant’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment on the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur and Any Similar Theories and 2) Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Circumstantial Evidence Under Strict Products Liability (‘Quasi’ — Res Ipsa).”
“In accordance with the foregoing, this Court, acting as Special Master, FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Attorney’s Fees, filed November 9, 2007, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO END STAY”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 468 days (N = 80).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 3.5 days (N = 10).
The 80 located assigned cases were all terminated and form a bounded historical cohort rather than a career-wide caseload measure.
Put Judge Chang's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Chang actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Chang's own signed orders and cites them.