Scott T. Varholak
How Judge Varholak decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At the pleading stage he holds plaintiffs to element-level specifics and statutory thresholds: a claim that omits a required element (e.g. the CFAA's $5,000 loss, or detail identifying the trade secret) fails, but the deficiency is treated as curable.
“the CFAA claim failed because Plaintiff failed to plead a loss of at least $5,000 stemming from the alleged unauthorized access ... because it is possible that Plaintiff could plausibly plead such claims, the magistrate judge recommended that each of them be dismissed without prejudice.”
Procedural preferences
Will NOT resolve a fact-dependent affirmative defense on a 12(b)(6) motion: where an element (e.g. RFRA's least-restrictive-means) requires a developed record, he recommends denying dismissal of that claim and letting it proceed to discovery.
“he determined that the second element of this affirmative defense -- whether there are less restrictive means of furthering those interests -- is fact dependent and thus inappropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.”
Cautions
Amendment-friendly: he routinely recommends dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE and, for pro se litigants, defines a limited path to replead the one theory that might survive -- so a dismissal on his recommendation is frequently not the end of the case.
“dismissing Plaintiff David Antonio Ruffin's Amended Complaint, without prejudice; and allowing Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint for the limited purpose of asserting a First Amendment claim”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 3 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court ACCEPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 45), GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12), and directs the Clerk to CLOSE this case.”
“the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Varholak's Recommendation to grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion, ECF No. 94. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, ECF No. 38, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak [Doc. 77] is ADOPTED; (2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 29] is GRANTED; (3) The Amended Complaint [Doc. 7] is DISMISSED without prejudice”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Directly-assigned sample is almost entirely pending 2026 filings -- no terminated-case duration distribution computable this session. His merits work is in referred R&Rs not captured by the assigned_judge string. Flagged for deepening (enumerate -STV referral dockets by number; sample terminated 636(c) consent cases).