Jose Alberto Cabranes
How Judge Cabranes rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Cabranes no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Cabranes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Protects a litigant’s chosen federal forum absent a concrete showing that parallel state proceedings justify a stay.
“The defendant has not demonstrated sufficient cause in the instant action to deprive the plaintiff of his choice of a federal forum.”
Procedural preferences
Applies the liberal amendment standard and requires an affirmative showing of actual prejudice, not mere possibility.
“The mere possibility of prejudice, however, is not tantamount to an affirmative showing of actual prejudice.”
Cautions
Limits discovery to requests reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, even in a broadly reviewed patent proceeding.
“A discovery request must be denied if it does not appear ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the plaintiffs’ motion to strike the fourth special defense is granted without prejudice to the defendant’s amending its answer to allege knowing use of a defective product by one or both of the plaintiffs.”
“the government’s motion to dismiss count one of the complaint is denied. Count two of the complaint is stricken as redundant pursuant to Rule 12(f), Fed.R.Civ.P.”
“the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is granted with respect to any of the 37 reported permit violations that occurred within five years of the commencement of this action.”
“The defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted with respect to any violations that occurred pri- or to April 23, 1979.”
“the defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied”
“the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (filed Mar. 1, 1989) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs’ ‘Motion for Determination of Choice of Law and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on the First and Second Affirmative Defenses of Defendant Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.’ (filed May 19, 1989) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“Plaintiffs’ application for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED”
“the court hereby grants the motion of the defendant City of New Britain for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”
“the individual defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for remittitur or for a new trial are denied.”
“defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts Four and Five of the complaint is granted.”
“defendant Allegheny Ludlum Corporation’s Motion for a Protective Order (filed July 30, 1990) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Allied-Signal, Inc.’s Renewal of its August 21, 1989 Motion to Compel and Motion to Compel Certain Deposition Testimony (filed July 30, 1990) is GRANTED with respect to Part A ## 1, 2, 3 and 4 (as modified in the oral hearing of August 17, 1990) and to the Part B deposi*139tions and DENIED with respect to Part A #5.”
“the defendant Devoe Realty’s Motion for Reconsideration (filed January 6, 1994) (doc. # 29) is hereby GRANTED.”
“the plaintiffs Request for Leave to Amend Complaint (filed November 4, 1993) (doc. #69) is hereby GRANTED over the defendants’ objections.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The fixed ten-docket sample covered early 1990 filings and included prisoner, civil-rights, securities, and other civil matters. Every retained entry stream was empty, so no caseload or duration inference is made.
A historical record
Judge Cabranes 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.