Haddon Lee Sarokin

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit circuit Retired 1996 · served 1994–1996 Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 15 signed orders read

Judge Sarokin no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Sarokin decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Treats impartial and respectful administrative process as indispensable even under heavy caseload pressure.

“Notwithstanding and recognizing the time pressures imposed upon those hearing the huge volume of such claims, rudeness, impatience, or outright bias cannot be tolerated.”

Allows an alleged credit-discrimination violation to be raised defensively even after the limitations period for an affirmative damages action.

“Plaintiff did not forfeit her right to raise such defense merely by her failure to institute an independent action to assert it.”

Procedural preferences

Requires especially reliable proof when disputed hearsay materially increases a criminal sentence.

“Accordingly the need for sufficient indicia of reliability is particularly manifest when findings regarding the quantity of drugs are predicated upon evidence which standing alone does not meet the higher standard of admissibility.”

Assesses Chapter 13 good faith through the totality of the circumstances rather than a categorical rule.

“We therefore join the Seventh, Ninth and Tenth Circuits in holding that the good faith of Chapter 13 filings must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in light of the totality of the circumstances.”

Cautions

Does not apply judicial estoppel from bankruptcy nondisclosure without evidence supporting an inference of intent.

“We therefore reject defendant's argument that intent may be inferred for purposes of judicial estoppel solely from nondisclosure notwithstanding the affirmative disclosure requirement of the Bankruptcy Code.”

Separates genuine fraud loss from the gross fees paid when some clients received satisfactory professional services.

“With some reluctance because of the conduct involved, we conclude and agree with defendant’s contention that fees paid by those who received satisfactory services are not to be included in determining the measurement of loss from his fraudulent scheme.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Ventura v. Shalala
· 1995-06-05
Appeal (Social-Security-claimant-appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Price
· 1996-02-15
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Denied

“For the reasons outlined above, we will affirm the judgment of the district court.”

Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P.
· 1995-03-28
Appeal (guarantor-appellant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs complaint and denial of injunctive and declaratory relief. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Powell
· 1996-06-24
Appeal (insured-appellant) Moot / procedural

“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm and remand this matter to the district court for purposes of dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.”

In re Flagstaff Realty Associates
· 1995-07-31
Appeal (commercial-tenant-appellant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse and remand to the district court for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.”

In re Lilley
· 1996-07-31
Appeal (Chapter-13-debtor-appellant) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, we reverse the district court’s holding regarding Mr. Lilley’s prepetition conduct, and remand to the district court with directions to remand to the bankruptcy court to determine whether Mr. Lilley satisfied the good faith filing requirement of Chapter 13.”

Development Finance Corp. v. Alpha Housing & Health Care, Inc.
· 1995-04-26
Appeal (proposed-intervenor-appellant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons we will reverse the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

United States v. Emanuele
· 1995-03-28
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of conviction on the Millvale robbery count, vacate the judgment of conviction on the Waterworks robbery count, and remand for a new trial on the Waterworks count consistent with the foregoing decision.”

National Labor Relations Board v. Konig
· 1996-04-04
Petition for enforcement (National-Labor-Relations-Board-petitioner) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we will deny review of the Board's Decision and grant enforcement of the Board's Order.”

Petition for review (nursing-home-cross-petitioner) Denied
Cinea v. Certo
· 1996-05-06
Appeal (judgment-debtors-appellants) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the district court.”

United States v. Brothers
· 1996-02-01
Appeal (criminal-defendant-appellant) Granted

“Therefore, we vacate the judgment of sentence and will remand to the district court for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.”

H.K. Porter Co. v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association
· 1996-01-18
Appeal (insured-company-appellant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we hereby reverse the order of the district court granting partial summary judgment in favor of PIGA.”

A historical record

Judge Sarokin 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.