John J. Tuchi
How Judge Tuchi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At the pleading stage he is generous to plaintiffs on plausibility: an inability to pinpoint the precise mechanical/digital defect does not doom a products-liability claim where the alleged failure mode is identified; discovery is the place to test it.
“Plaintiff will have the opportunity, through discovery, to try to substantiate this theory or to pinpoint another more precise cause of the alleged defect. ... whether Plaintiff can produce a sufficient quantum of evidence to support her claim is a question for a later stage of the case.”
Procedural preferences
Rigorous, defendant-protective personal-jurisdiction gatekeeping: applies the Calder effects test strictly, requiring conduct that connects the defendant to the FORUM, not merely to a plaintiff who happens to live there.
“The proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant's conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.”
Routinely decides dispositive motions on the briefs without oral argument under LRCiv 7.2(f).
“The Court finds oral argument unnecessary to resolve the Motion. See LRCiv 7.2(f).”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 8 |
Granted: 6Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 8 |
Granted: 3Granted in part: 3Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 2 |
Granted: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to amend N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to terminate party N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 4). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter final judgment accordingly and close this case.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff and Counterdefendants Larry J. Busch and Busch Law Center, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 121).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant and Counterclaimant Yellow Brick Road, LLC's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 129). YBR is not entitled to summary judgment on its RICO claims, Counts I-II ... YBR is entitled to summary judgment on the remainder of its counterclaims, Counts III-V, as well as all of the Busch Parties' claims as set forth in this Order.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERD denying Defendant Daimler Truck North America LLC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17).”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 73.) ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in Defendant's favor and close this case.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant's Motion to Strike as moot. (Doc. 89.)”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant Instacart's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 34). Plaintiff's claims against Instacart are dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Defendant Out West Ventures, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 146) as renewed by the Supplement (Doc. 169).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Kelly Standorf's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 167). The filing of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint relates back to the filing of the original Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1). Plaintiff's Motion is denied in all other respects.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 44). Under the Policy, Defendant may not depreciate the cost of materials for the repair of the dryer, fire, and electrical systems.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 46). Defendant is entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages, but Defendant's Motion is denied in all other respects.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16). Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 19), Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. 22), and second Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 24).”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant Rooter Ranger LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) and dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Rooter Ranger LLC.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Jordan and Brittany Beebe's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike (Doc. 31) and dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Jordan and Brittany Beebe.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Jordan and Brittany Beebe's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 38). The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 38) is stricken.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in full Mr. Sheridan's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 88).”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part and denying in part, as described hereinabove, the University Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 89).”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant Khosravi's Motion to Terminate or Dismiss France Khosravi as a Party (Doc. 211).”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff SEC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34).”