Christine Marie Arguello
How Judge Arguello rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Arguello decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Specific unresolved factual questions precluded summary judgment on the discrimination, retaliation, and outrageous-conduct claims in the reviewed employment case.
“Upon consideration of the Motion, the related briefing, and the applicable law, the Court finds that there are genuine disputes of material fact that preclude summary judgment on Dr. Judson’s claims for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-301, et seq. (‘CADA’); retaliation under Title VII and CADA; and outrageous conduct”
In the reviewed copyright case, concrete disputes over ownership, copying, and where the code was hosted prevented either side from obtaining summary judgment on infringement.
“Upon review of the parties’ filings and the evidence referenced therein, the Court determines that genuine issues of material fact preclude the Court from entering summary judgment in favor of either party on Plaintiff’s sole claim of copyright infringement.”
Procedural preferences
When no party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation in the reviewed case, the court reviewed the record for clear error before adopting the recommendation.
“Based on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Varholak’s thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations are correct and that ‘there is no clear error on the face of the record.’”
A general objection that did not identify a factual or legal error was insufficient to trigger de novo review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation in the reviewed case.
“Caldwell’s Objection to Judge Mix’s Recommendation is not sufficiently specific to invoke de novo review. The Objection fails to identify any factual or legal errors in the Recommendation, and it fails to provide any legitimate basis for rejecting the Recommendation.”
Cautions
Expressly conceding that affirmative defenses could not be maintained led to summary judgment against those defenses in the reviewed copyright case.
“Defendant concedes in its Response that it ‘cannot maintain its affirmative defenses of laches, first sale, lack of notice, collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, failure to join an indispensable party, exhaustion, and fair use.’ (Doc. # 137 at 19.) The Court therefore grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to these affirmative defenses.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“FURTHER ORDERED Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 42) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 8) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Recommendation.”
“FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Medac, Inc.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 24) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 114) is DENIED IN PART as to its claim for copyright infringement and certain affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant. ... FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 114) is GRANTED IN PART as to the following affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant: laches, first sale, lack of notice, collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, failure to join an indispensable party, exhaustion, and fair use.”
“FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 122) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 46) is DENIED.”
“FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Expedited Ruling on Issue of Law (Doc. # 53) is DENIED. ... FURTRHER ORDERED that and Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Recognize Proof of Service (Doc. # 68) is DENIED. ... FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. # 35) is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 18) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiff’s claim for prospective injunctive relief is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike Class Allegations is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Retained Expert Jacqueline Bloink (Doc. # 31) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion Default Judgment Against Defendant Brian Mauch (Doc. #14) is hereby GRANTED;”
“The Parties’ Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. # 40) is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. # 27) is DENIED AS MOOT;”
“Dismiss (Doc. # 59) is hereby GRANTED as to all claims. All claims in this action are”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 14) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Two civil terminated durations were captured (San Juan, 790 days: a case that, after she granted a motion to compel arbitration, was eventually dismissed for failure to prosecute after plaintiff's counsel withdrew). The recency windows are criminal-heavy. This is not a distribution; a larger civil terminated-docket sample would be needed before reading it as one.
Draft for Judge Arguello with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Arguello, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Arguello's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace