Richard Alan Enslen
Judge Enslen no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Enslen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Enslen required a summary-judgment movant to establish the absence of a genuine dispute even when the opposing party filed no response.
“The moving party always bears the initial burden of specifying the basis on which summary judgment should be granted and showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and the court is required to examine the motion to determine if that burden has been met.”
He enforced the removing party's obligation to place jurisdictional facts in the removal papers rather than supplying them later in briefing.
“Defendant’s conclusory statement in its Notice of Removal is not enough.”
Enslen declined to compel arbitration when the asserted tort claims were not intertwined with the licensing agreement.
“The facts of this case do not ‘touch’ the contract nor are they ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the contract in any sense sufficient to compel arbitration.”
Procedural preferences
Enslen independently reviewed a magistrate judge's recommendation and separated a flawed exhaustion rationale from a sound merits basis for judgment.
“Upon such review, the Court determines that summary judgment was properly recommended on the merits for the reasons given in the last part of the Report”
He treated a reconsideration motion as a narrow vehicle and denied it where the asserted authority did not undermine the prior ruling.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of their motion to recover reasonable litigation costs (dkt. # 101), dated December 7,1993, is DENIED.”
Enslen expected parties to pursue fee questions through a documented post-judgment motion.
“Parties may pursue attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(d) by the filing of a post-judgment motion.”
Cautions
Enslen scrutinized benefit-administration records for evidence that the decision process was biased toward a predetermined result.
“In other words, the evidence tends to demonstrate that the claims analysis was result-oriented and biased.”
He imposed sanctions on counsel who pursued claims that existing law made objectively unreasonable, even while tailoring the monetary sanction to the misconduct.
“Plaintiffs counsel filed a claim that he knew or should have known was frivolous and not warranted under existing law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in his favor will be denied, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment in its favor will be granted.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with Regard to McLeodUSA’s Use of Prior Years’ Directories (Dkt. No. 123) is GRANTED.”
“For the above reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Electronic Arts, Inc.’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Therefore, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and it remands this case to the circuit court.”
“As this Court has determined it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case, it denies Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Dkt. No. 18) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the other counts is also denied as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any request for stay pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure is DENIED”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Award Interest, filed May 1, 2000 (Dkt.269), is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Conversion of Arbitration Award to Judgment, filed March 27, 2000 (Dkt.267), is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated, an Order shall issue denying the Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Compel Arbitration.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that George Moisenko and German Automotive’s motion for summary judgment, filed September 30, 1997 (dkt.# 55), is GRANTED;”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Nancy C. Loucks’ Motion for Entry of Judgment (Dkt. No. 22) is GRANTED”
“Defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston’s Motion for Entry of Judgment (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED.”
“are GRANTED in all respects except for the requests to dismiss because of lack of exhaustion”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Grand Rapids Public Schools’ Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Dkt. No. 31) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants P.C. and T.C.’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 38) is GRANTED to the extent that the Court finds based on the Administrative Record in favor of Defendants as to all claims raised by Plaintiffs Complaint.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 4) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is GRANTED as to all Defendants, including the County of Calhoun.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Dkt. no. 4) pursuant .to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Default (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1526 days (N = 5).
The twenty enumerated cases in the returned 1981-1986 filing cohort were dominated by prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, with additional patent, securities, employment, and other civil-rights disputes. The five randomized sample dockets were all terminated and retained no motion-entry text.
A historical record
Judge Enslen 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.