Marilyn Jean Horan
How Judge Horan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
She enforces administrative-exhaustion prerequisites strictly: an employment-discrimination plaintiff who has not pled an EEOC charge and right-to-sue letter has not stated a claim, and a related state-law count falls with the federal claim once supplemental jurisdiction is declined.
“Because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC and receiving a right to sue letter, her disability discrimination claim cannot be maintained.”
On premises-liability summary judgment she requires the plaintiff to prove the landowner had actual or constructive notice of the specific hazard; a hazard that existed only seconds (snow blown through a briefly-malfunctioning door) cannot, as a matter of law, supply notice, defeating the duty element.
“absent notice of the hazardous conditions, there is no duty upon Walmart in this case.”
Procedural preferences
She runs a structured pre-trial process (a Standing Order on Civil Motion Practice, early case-management conferences, and routine referral to Early Neutral Evaluation/ADR); many of her civil dockets resolve at ENE/ADR rather than on dispositive motions.
“Under this Court's Standing Order and Procedures on Civil Motion Practice (ECF No. 3), any response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should have been filed on or before August 30, 2021.”
Cautions
If a represented party fails to respond to a motion to dismiss even after a show-cause order, she will treat the motion as unopposed and grant it without a full merits analysis -- do not let a response deadline lapse.
“To date, Ms. Lyles has not filed a Response. Accordingly, the matter is now ripe for consideration.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(1) will both be granted.”
“Defendant American Cap Company's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“Defendant Walmart Stores East, L.P.'s Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED.”
Pro se prisoner suit; adopting Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly's report and recommendation over objections after de novo review. In a sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e), the court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and denied leave to amend as futile, while dismissing the state claims without prejudice. 'all claims asserted by Mr. Taylor are dismissed, and the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.' This screening disposition did not resolve a party motion.
Pro se in forma pauperis filing. The court granted pauper status, dismissed the complaint under Section 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous, failing to state a claim, and violating Rule 8, and denied leave to amend as futile. It also denied the plaintiff's pro se summary-judgment motion as premature. This was principally a screening disposition, and the summary-judgment request was resolved on procedural timing rather than the merits.
“The Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is hereby GRANTED. This matter is hereby referred for individual arbitration, and the matter is STAYED pending the outcome of such proceedings.”
“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 15) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Defendants, AIL and Simon Arias, Arias Agencies, and S.A. Holdings, LLC, Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. A stay against those defendants is entered, pending completion of arbitration unless Court intervention becomes necessary.”
“Defendant, Michael Russin’s, Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied.”
“Following consideration of Mr. Scorza’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (ECF No. 21), the respective briefs (ECF Nos. 25 and 26), Exhibits (ECF No. 29), testimony, the arguments of counsel, and for the following reasons, Mr. Scorza’s Motion to Confirm will be granted and additional counsel fees will be awarded as set forth below.”
“Accordingly, following consideration of the foregoing, Mr. Warner’s Motion for Remand will be granted.”
“THEREFORE, the Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant Lemons and Defendant City of Washington, are hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in Defendants’ favor.”
“A default judgment does not likely place her in any better position than when she first filed this suit.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 2022-2023 sample includes prisoner civil-rights, product-liability, insurance, disability, employment, securities, and wage-and-hour matters. Many sampled civil cases ended through early neutral evaluation or other alternative dispute resolution, leaving few dispositive-motion timing observations.
Put Judge Horan's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Horan actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Horan's own signed orders and cites them.