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

Gerald L. Rushfelt

United States District Court for the District of Kansas 2 signed orders read

How Judge Rushfelt decides

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

What persuades

On Rule 35 examinations, Rushfelt treats the Scheduling Order's exam deadline as 'presumptive,' not hard, and will find good cause to extend it when the moving party did not know an objection was coming (D. Kan. R. 35.1 allows an exam 'at any time prior to trial'). He also reads the Rule 35(a)(2)(B) specificity requirement pragmatically: a motion that gives general details (time, place, examining doctor) is sufficient even if it omits the manner, scope, and conditions, which the court leaves to the parties to work out. Practical lesson: a Rule 35 motion need not be exhaustively detailed to be granted before him, and a late objection by the opposing party can itself justify extending the exam deadline.

“when Rule 35 motions are specific enough to provide general details of the examination, but fail to specify all of the elements as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35, the court 'will leave the specifics to be worked out by the parties.' ... Defendant has shown good cause for an extension of the deadline for completing a Rule 35 examination.”

On attorney withdrawal, Rushfelt enforces D. Kan. R. 83.5.5 strictly when no substitute counsel has appeared, treating its client-protection steps as substantive, not formal. Counsel cannot withdraw merely by filing a notice; the motion must (1) state reasons, (2) advise the client he is personally responsible for orders/deadlines, (3) advise of impending deadlines, (4) give the client's current contact information, and include proof the client was served. Practical lesson: before moving to withdraw from a still-represented client in ksd, paper the file with the required client warnings and proof of service, or expect a denial without prejudice.

“The Court knows of no rule that authorizes counsel to simply file a paper to announce his withdrawal and thus abandon his client, particularly when there is no new counsel to fulfill his responsibilities to the Court, to his client, and to opposing counsel.”

Signed rulings

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

Boles v. BNSF Railway Company
2:08-cv-02554-JWL-GLR · 2009-06-03
Motion for rule 35 examination (defendant) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion for Rule 35 Examination and to Extend Time (doc. 73) is sustained. Plaintiff shall submit to a physical examination by Dr. Ernest Neighbor at the doctor's professional office in Independence, Missouri, at a date and time mutually convenient to the parties.”

Rodriguez Chevere v. Epic Landscape Productions, L.C.
2:17-cv-02733-JWL-GLR · 2018-08-02
Motion to withdraw Denied

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Motion to Withdraw (ECF 14) filed by Plaintiff's counsel is denied without prejudice.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median motion-to-ruling time: 19 days (N = 19).

Rushfelt handled referred discovery and case-management matters across the district judges' civil dockets, as well as dispositive recommendations. During recall service, he also accepted assignments in other districts, including the District of Nebraska by designation.

Put Judge Rushfelt's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Rushfelt actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Rushfelt's own signed orders and cites them.