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

David Warner Hagen

United States District Court for the District of Nevada district Retired 2005 · served 1993–2005 Appointed by Bill Clinton 20 signed orders read

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

How Judge Hagen decides

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

What persuades

Hagen declined to dismiss an insurance bad-faith claim based on a timing rule that Nevada courts had not actually announced.

“No such rule of law yet has been declared by the Nevada court.”

He allowed fair-housing claims to proceed where sequential developments supported a triable continuing-violation theory.

“the court finds that the statute of limitations has not run on plaintiffs SSA claims against defendant ERGS because a triable issue of fact exists as to the allegations that the SSA claims were part of a practice of FHA violations that continued into the limitations period.”

He granted facial constitutional relief where Nevada ethics statutes infringed protected speech.

“the court finds that N.R.S. §§ 281.525(1) and 281.551(2)(a) violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution”

Procedural preferences

Hagen reviewed a magistrate judge's nondispositive ruling under the clearly-erroneous-or-contrary-to-law standard.

“the magistrate judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

He refused a mandatory class settlement that released damages claims without opt-out rights.

“Because the proposed settlement provides no opt-out right, the court finds the release of all claims provision to be inconsistent with due process”

He treated adequate state administrative and judicial review as sufficient to trigger the federal tax-jurisdiction bar.

“This court finds that the state remedy is ‘plain, speedy and efficient’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1341.”

Cautions

Hagen used dismissal as a sanction after finding clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court.

“The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Munnings perpetrated a fraud on the court”

He applied complete federal preemption to state-law claims arising from an interstate household-goods shipment.

“anything other than complete preemption of state law claims is contrary to the very purpose of the Carmack Amendment”

He dismissed a repetitive tax suit with prejudice after finding it wholly frivolous.

“In short, Salman’s action is wholly frivolous, and this court must dismiss it with prejudice.”

Signed rulings

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

Miles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
· 1998-11-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motions (# s 6 and 9) to dismiss and remand are denied; the motion (# 6) for bifurcation is granted as set forth above.”

Motions to remand (plaintiffs) Denied
Motion to bifurcate (defendant) Granted
United States v. Cantrell
· 1995-06-07
Motion for reconsideration (government) Denied

“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the government’s motion to reconsider order granting presentence release (# 41) is denied;”

Salman v. Department of the Treasury-Internal Revenue Service
· 1995-06-05
Motion for injunctive relief (government) Denied

“For the above reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ motion for injunctive relief (# 3) is DENIED;”

Salman v. Department of the Treasury-Internal Revenue Service
· 1995-04-11
Motions to dismiss (government) Granted

“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ motion to dismiss (#3) is GRANTED; Salman’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;”

Culbertson v. Freightliner Corp.
· 1999-03-23
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that summary judgement is granted to defendants on all claims.”

Atilano v. United States
· 1998-08-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (# 7) is GRANTED IN PART.”

Silver State Fair Housing Council, Inc. v. ERGS, Inc.
· 2005-03-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant ERGS Inc.’s motion for summary judgment (# 96) is DENIED.”

Collins v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
· 1999-03-26
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s summary judgment motion (# 14) be GRANTED.”

Mallard Automotive Group, Ltd. v. United States
· 2004-09-21
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for Reconsideration (# 20) be GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (# 11) be GRANTED.”

Dehne v. Avanino
· 2001-09-19
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion (#39) is GRANTED.”

Motion for judgment on pleadings or summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion (# 36) is DENIED.”

Meredith ex rel. Meredith v. Callahan
· 1997-09-12
Summary judgment (Commissioner) Denied

“The order affirming the Commissioner’s decision is reversed and the Commissioner’s motion (# 15) for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Motion for extension of time (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs motion (# 19) for time in which to respond to the Commissioner’s notice (# 18) is DENIED as moot.”

Doe v. Goldman
· 1996-10-16
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss (#5) is GRANTED. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The 20 reviewed decisions cover varied litigation but do not establish the distribution of Hagen's full caseload.

A historical record

Judge Hagen 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.