Brian Edward Sandoval
Judge Sandoval no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Sandoval decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Sandoval treated a First Amendment claim as especially compelling where the school identified neither disruption nor a curricular basis for restricting the student's speech.
“In the total absence of any evidence indicating that the Defendants’ prohibition of Plaintiffs recitation of the Auden poem is constitutionally permissible, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown a high probability of success on the merits of his claim that Defendants have violated his First Amendment rights.”
He read an insurance limitation clause as a whole and refused to isolate the shorter contractual period from language adopting a longer state-law period.
“The first sentence cannot be read independently of the second sentence and if a state has a longer limitation period, the state law is to be applied.”
On statutory interpretation, he gave effect to the complete cross-referenced provision rather than excluding its limiting language.
“By subjecting wrongful levy judgments to the overpayment rate as described in § 6621, Congress expressed its intent to give effect to the whole of § 6621(a)(1) in calculating the overpayment rate, including the rate reduction articulated in § 6621(a)(l)’s flush language.”
Procedural preferences
He denied amendment when the proposed counterclaim could not satisfy jurisdictional prerequisites and equitable recoupment was unavailable.
“Thus, the Court finds that amending Defendants’ answer to include the proposed counterclaim would be futile.”
He favored resolving cases on the merits where setting aside default caused no evidentiary prejudice and the defendant promptly asserted a facially viable defense.
“Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by an order setting aside the entry of default.”
In reviewing agency action, he applied the deferential standard without substituting the court's policy judgment for the agency's.
“This Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency, and based on a review of the administrative record and governing law, this Court holds that the IBLA decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious.”
Cautions
He rejected a summary-judgment analysis that treated mark dissimilarity as dispositive without considering the full likelihood-of-confusion framework.
“We hold that because the district court erred in its application of the relevant infringement test, the district court’s entry of summary judgment in Jada’s favor as to those claims is reversed.”
He required a bad-faith claimant to produce evidence that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis, not merely evidence that the insurer valued the claim differently.
“State Farm did not deny the claim, it just paid a different value than Schumacher requested.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion For Leave to Amend the Answer to Assert a Counterclaim (# 8) is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss (# 10) is granted, and that this action is therefore dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (#2) is hereby GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 15) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that HIDE Venezuela’s Motion to Set Aside Default (# 19) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that HIDE Venezuela’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (#25) is DENIED.”
“Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (# 21/22), is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Geo-Energy’s Motion for Summary Judgment (# 20) is DENIED.”
“REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.”
“We reverse and hold that the flush language of § 6621(a)(1) applies to wrongful levy judgments and therefore the district court should have given effect to the rate reduction described therein.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The seven reviewed decisions do not establish the distribution of Sandoval's full federal caseload.
A historical record
Judge Sandoval 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.