Waverly David Crenshaw Jr.
How Judge Crenshaw decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Antitrust: credits a plausibly-pleaded algorithmic price-fixing theory at the pleading stage -- lessors feeding real-time commercially sensitive pricing/supply data into a common algorithm that returns shared pricing recommendations can state a Sherman Act agreement (the RealPage multifamily claims survived dismissal).
“Plaintiffs allege that Lessors submit real-time commercially sensitive pricing and supply data to be compiled into a common algorithm to produce ‘forward-looking, unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations based on [Lessors’] shared data.’ ... The Court has already credited these al[legations]”
Requires more than bare parallel conduct for a circumstantial antitrust conspiracy -- circumstantial evidence means parallel conduct PLUS additional factors that make a conspiracy plausible.
“The resounding majority of courts examining circumstantial evidence of an antitrust conspiracy hold that circumstantial evidence consists of parallel conduct plus additional factors tending to make a conspiracy plausible.”
Procedural preferences
Adopts magistrate-judge R&Rs and will overrule a pro se plaintiff's objections where the recommendation is sound, entering final judgment on the adopted recommendation.
“Plaintiffs' Objections (Doc. No. 72) are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 71) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED.”
On dismissing the federal anchor claims he declines supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice (so they can be refiled in state court), reserving with-prejudice dismissal for the federal claims decided on the merits.
“their claims under the Tennessee Open Records Act are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs' Objections (Doc. No. 72) are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 71) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 37) is GRANTED. This case is dismissed.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and their claims under the Tennessee Open Records Act are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.”
“the Court will grant the Student Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Student Rentals First Amended Complaint”
“and will deny Multifamily Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Multifamily Rentals Second Amended Complaint.”
“For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion, (Doc. No. 685) Thoma Bravo Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Doc. No. 570) and the Student Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Doc. No. 572) are DENIED.”
“For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion, (Doc. No. 686) TREV Management II LLC's Motion to Dismiss Student-Housing Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Doc. No. 576) is GRANTED. TREV Management II LLC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from the Student Complaint.”
“For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion, (Doc. No. 687) the Motion to Dismiss LRO Claims for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. No. 580) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion, (Doc. No. 688) Certain Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Plead Agency Liability (Doc. No. 581) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion, (Doc. No. 690) Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Student Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Doc. No. 587) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Multifamily Plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Doc. No. 592) is DENIED.”
“For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion, (Doc. No. 689) Defendants' Motion to Enforce Class Action Waivers (Doc. No. 590) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to the class action waiver of Selena Vincin and her class action claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The motion is DENIED as to the class action waivers for Brandon Watters and Jeffrey Weaver. The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to the class action waivers for Joshua Kabisch and Meghan Cherry.”
“For the following reasons, the Court will neither grant nor deny the Motion, and instead concludes that the interest of justice is best served by severing the contested claims and transferring them to facially proper jurisdictions... Accordingly, the Court will sever the claims in the Kabisch Complaint, and the Kabisch action will become four separate actions involving the claims against: (1) Prometheus and Sares Regis; (2) Rose; (3) CONTI; and (4) the remaining non-moving defendants... Once severed, the claims against Prometheus and Sares Regis will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The claims against Rose will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The claims against CONTI will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.”
“The Complaint (Doc. No. 1) alleges state law claims against the individual Defendants for aiding and abetting under the THRA and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but Plaintiff has abandoned those claims against the individual Defendants (Doc. No. 48, p.2). Therefore, all claims against the individual Defendants (Gates, Pilkington, Coddington and Ohlson) are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“For all these reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No.38) is GRANTED as to the claims against the individual Defendants and DENIED as to the claims against FWE.”
“For the foregoing reasons, NSA's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 25) will be granted in part and denied in part. The Court will dismiss Mussaw's THRA and ADA claims, as well as her discrimination claims under Title VII and Section 1981. Mussaw's remaining retaliation claims under Title VII and Section 1981 will proceed to trial.”
“For the reasons outlined above, NES' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 33) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Accordingly, the City's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED.”
“Pending before the Court is Defendants' fully briefed Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 108, 109, 112, 113). For the following reasons, the motion will be denied... For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be denied. Counts I and II will proceed, and this case will be returned to the Magistrate Judge for further case management.”
“For all these reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 42) will be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' claims for breach of the duty of loyalty (found in Count I) will be dismissed. All of Plaintiffs' claims with regard to the initial commitment (‘locking in’) with TIAA-CREF (found in Counts I, II, III, IV and VI) are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court will also dismiss Plaintiffs' claim that having too many options was a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (found in Count V); Plaintiffs' claims for Failure to Monitor Fiduciaries (Count VII); and Plaintiffs' claims regarding ‘prohibited transactions’ (Counts II, IV and VI), except as they relate to the Plan's initial agreements with VALIC, Fidelity and Vanguard, if those agreements were made within the six-year statute of limitations. The remaining claims are Count I, only as it relates to maintaining imprudent investments; Count III; Count V, except the claim for having too many options; and Counts IV and VI, solely as they relate to the Plan's initial agreements with VALIC, Fidelity and Vanguard.”
“The CoreCivic Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 204) is DENIED with respect to Bowles's Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against Moore and is GRANTED with respect to Bowles's remaining claims against CoreCivic, Beaver, Hill, Huddleston, Matthews, Mitchell, Murray, Rowe, and Smith.”
“Brun's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 246) is GRANTED.”
“Bowles's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 217) is DENIED.”
“Pursuant to Rule 4(m), Bowles's claims against Jackson and Harris are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 626 days (N = 7).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 31 days (N = 1).
The recent sample includes False Claims Act, trademark, habeas, prisoner civil-rights, contract, criminal, and RealPage antitrust multidistrict matters. Earlier sampled cases include criminal, prisoner, Social Security, insurance, and contract litigation, including matters inherited from a predecessor's docket.
Put Judge Crenshaw's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Crenshaw actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Crenshaw's own signed orders and cites them.