James Burton Loken
How Judge Loken rules, drawn from 70 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Loken decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed excessive-force case, conflicting testimony about the amount of force and whether the detainee posed a threat or flight risk had to be credited in the nonmovant’s favor at summary judgment.
“Here, there is conflicting testimony as to the amount of force used and whether Westwater posed an immediate threat to Church or a risk of flight. The security camera did not capture the use of force, and the conversation in the squad car was not recorded.”
Under the reviewed deadly-force analysis, an officer with probable cause to believe a fleeing suspect posed a serious threat could use deadly force when necessary to prevent escape.
“Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”
Credible asylum testimony may still require corroboration when it is weak or insufficiently detailed; the reviewed petition failed because the record did not compel a finding that corroborating evidence was unavailable.
“Applying the governing deferential standard of review, we will not reverse the BIA’s ruling that the credible but weak testimony supporting her asylum claim was not adequately corroborated. We are not ‘compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.’”
Preliminary-injunction evidence must show that damages cannot compensate the alleged injury; even a severe employee departure did not establish irreparable harm without that showing.
“We conclude the preliminary injunction record falls short of the showing required to establish that Choreo’s alleged injuries cannot be compensated by an award of damages for Defendants’ alleged breach of contract and tortious interference absent extraordinary preliminary injunctive relief.”
Procedural preferences
The reviewed statutory interpretation followed the enacted text without adding protections or restrictions that the legislature had not supplied.
“When interpreting a statute, the Supreme Court of Minnesota ‘will not add words to the statute that the Legislature did not supply.’”
The reviewed agency decision vacated a rule whose disparate-impact theory and broad covered-entity definition exceeded the authority Congress granted.
“For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority under § 60506 by adopting a final rule that authorized the imposition of disparate impact liability and defined the entities covered by the rule overbroadly.”
Claim preclusion can resolve an appeal on a narrower procedural ground even after a party advances a viable statutory interpretation; the reviewed case turned on the binding effect of an unappealed prior order.
“This conclusion does Stursberg no good in this case for a simple reason basic to the law of claim and issue preclusion.”
Arbitration deference has a contractual boundary: an award cannot stand when the panel effectively adds a requirement to an unambiguous agreement through extrinsic evidence.
“We conclude that the panel effectively amended the unambiguous Challenge contract when it used extrinsic evidence to require that the data provided was packet capture data, thereby violating established principles of Minnesota contract law and our arbitration precedents.”
State-sovereign-immunity objections to third-party discovery require a case-specific inquiry into the particular subpoena’s effects rather than a categorical discovery rule.
“When contested, we conclude these are fact-intensive inquiries that turn on the circumstances of a particular case and the third-party discovery subpoena at issue.”
Cautions
A request for religious accommodation was not, by itself, opposition-clause activity where the employer considered accommodation requests and denied this one without an asserted unlawful policy.
“But when an employee or applicant requests a religious accommodation, and the request is denied by an employer such as North Memorial that accommodates reasonable requests that do not cause ‘undue hardship,’ there is no basis for an opposition-clause retaliation claim under § 2000e-3(a).”
An organization cannot establish Article III standing through conclusory programmatic harms or by choosing to spend resources in response to conduct that caused it no concrete injury.
“Because PILF failed to allege or establish a concrete injury in fact, it lacks Article III standing.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We now conclude that the means the disciplined employees used in their poster attack were so disloyal as to exceed their right to engage in concerted activities protected by the NLRA, as construed in a controlling Supreme Court precedent, NLRB v. Local Union No. 1229, IBEW ... (‘Jefferson Standard’). We therefore decline to enforce the determination that MikLin violated the Act by disciplining and discharging those employees and by soliciting removal of the unprotected posters. We enforce the remainder of the Order, as so modified.”
“Applying the governing deferential standard of review, we will not reverse the BIA's ruling that the credible but weak testimony supporting her asylum claim was not adequately corroborated. ... Accordingly, Ms. Adongafac failed to establish her eligibility for asylum relief. ... For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition for review.”
“On appeal, Harris argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable because ordering imprisonment, rather than extending his mandatory residential reentry placement, is ‘simply unreasonable.’ Reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence for abuse of discretion, we affirm.”
“Applying these standards of review, we reverse the denial of qualified immunity; direct that Counts I, V, VI, and VII claims be dismissed with prejudice; and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
“We agree with the district court's prediction that the Supreme Court of Minnesota, applying the plain language of the MVSDA, would conclude that Anderson & Koch may not challenge the proposed new Ford dealership under 80E.13(k) or (p). ... For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”
“The district court's Order dated December 15, 2022 is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Bothwell.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
“Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Circuit judges do not carry a trial caseload; not enumerated.
Draft for Judge Loken with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Loken, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Loken's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace