Neil V. Wake
Judge Wake no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Wake decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
He dismisses with prejudice and denies leave to amend as futile where the dispositive legal defect (e.g., a statutory element that cannot be met) cannot be cured by repleading.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. 16) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Cautions
In police-negligence wrongful-death suits he grants the municipality summary judgment under Arizona's public-entity qualified-immunity statute (A.R.S. 12-820.02) absent gross negligence, and where proximate causation would require sheer speculation.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant City of Phoenix's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 47) is granted.”
On Fair Credit Reporting Act claims he dismisses where the plaintiff sues a furnisher under FCRA provisions that apply only to consumer reporting agencies; he grants leave to amend but warns the dismissal converts to with-prejudice if the defect is not cured by the deadline.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Midland's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 23) is granted with leave to amend by January 30, 2015. If by that date Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, Defendant Midland's motion will be granted with prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Concordia College’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (Doc. 96) is denied except as granted with respect to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Consolidated Complaint (Doc. 101 (redacted) and Doc. 104 (sealed, unredacted)).”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. 16) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is granted.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the City of Casa Grande's motion for summary judgment (doc. # 84) is granted.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Officers Lynch, Sansone, and Robsinson's motion for summary judgment (doc. # 84) is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant City of Phoenix's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 47) is granted.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Dodge's Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 6) and Lake Havasu City, Chief Doyle, Lisa Doyle and Lake Havasu Police Department's Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in Defendant Dodge's Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 27) are granted in part and denied in part.”
“Lake Havasu City, Chief Doyle, Lisa Doyle and Lake Havasu Police Department's Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in Defendant Dodge's Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 27) are granted in part and denied in part.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Walgreen Arizona Drug Company's Motion to Dismiss and Joinder in Defendant Dodge's Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 22) ... are granted.”
“Defendants Gallman's Joinder in Defendant Dodge's Motion to Dismiss (Sections B, C, E) on Behalf of Defendants Gallman (doc. # 16) are granted.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant United States' Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 23) is denied for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) and otherwise granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 2674.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims Within Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is dismissed. Any claims under international law are dismissed. The Motion is otherwise denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Midland's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. 23) is granted with leave to amend by January 30, 2015. If by that date Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, Defendant Midland's motion will be granted with prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Renewed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Doc. # 96, against Plaintiffs' claims for interference with business advantage and violation of the right of publicity is granted.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss (doc. ## 32, 33, and 34) are granted as follows: ... Defendants Jenkins, Bendavid, Terrible Herbst, Connor, English, Cavanaugh ('Duff'), and Wolf are dismissed from this action without prejudice for improper joinder of parties.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss (doc. ## 32, 33, and 34) are granted as follows: ... The action is dismissed with prejudice as against Defendant MASH unit, a division of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, for lack of capacity to be sued.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss (doc. ## 32, 33, and 34) are granted as follows: ... The complaint and the action are dismissed with prejudice as against Defendants Anderson, Bertucci, and Fernandez.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Higgins's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) and Defendants Carlyon and Rhoton's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) are granted.”
A historical record
Judge Wake 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.