Neil V. Wake
How Judge Wake rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Wake no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Wake
Neil Vincent Wake was a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Wake received a commission on March 15, 2004. Judge Wake assumed senior status on July 5, 2016 and served until death on May 26, 2026.
How Judge Wake decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Kester v. CitiMortgage, he dismissed the amended statutory claim with prejudice after finding that the alleged notary defect did not satisfy the statute.
“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 Sudberry, Wake granted Phoenix summary judgment in a wrongful death action because the evidence did not establish gross negligence or causation under Arizona law.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant City of Phoenix's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 47) is granted.”
In Rosciano v. Experian, he dismissed an FCRA claim against a furnisher with leave to amend by January 30, warning that failure to amend would make the dismissal final with prejudice.
“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.”
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Wake no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.