Michael P. Shea

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 15 signed orders read

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 = 11
Granted: 4Granted in part: 1Denied: 4Moot / procedural: 2 45% granted
Summary judgment
N = 6
Granted: 3Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 counts only
Motions to strike
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion to change venue
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for new trial
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motion for reconsideration
N = 1
Denied: 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.

Inkel v. State of Connecticut
3:17-cv-01400-MPS · 2019-03-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, the [ECF Nos. 28 & 30] motions to dismiss are GRANTED; the motions to strike [ECF Nos. 45 & 46] are GRANTED... Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to close this case.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the [ECF Nos. 28 & 30] motions to dismiss are GRANTED”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“the motions to strike [ECF Nos. 45 & 46] are GRANTED”

Motion to change venue (plaintiff) Denied

“the [ECF No. 39] motion for change of venue is DENIED”

Diaz v. State of Connecticut Department of Developmental Services
3:23-cv-00300-MPS · 2023-10-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the Plaintiff's ADA challenge and because I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's CFEPA claim, I GRANT the motion to dismiss without prejudice.”

Shafik v. Aston Martin Lagonda of North America
3:23-cv-00207-MPS · 2024-03-12
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“In short, Shafik does not allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim against US Auto, and so I grant US Auto's motion to dismiss.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“I deny without prejudice AMLGH's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) and Rule 12(b)(2). ... As such, I deny AMLGH's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Though Shafik served ASD and Miller past the Court's deadline of July 13, 2023, given Shafik's pro se status, I must afford him 'special leniency.' As such, I deny as moot ASD's and Miller's motions to dismiss.”

Ramos v. Cheney
3:24-cv-00006-MPS · 2025-07-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 46] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case.”

State of Connecticut et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al.
3:20-cv-00802-MPS · 2026-01-09
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Because there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Mylan participated in conspiracies related to Bromocriptine, Phenytoin, and Pio Met, as well as the overarching conspiracy, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.”

Avitable v. Raywood
3:17-cv-01696-MPS · 2019-08-29
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Because probable cause is a complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”

Fletcher v. City of New London (Estate of Lashano Gilbert)
3:16-cv-00241-MPS · 2018-12-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Dr. Cronin-Vorih's motion for summary judgment is therefore DENIED.”

Solid 21, Inc. v. Breitling U.S.A., Inc.
3:19-cv-00514-MPS · 2022-01-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“I GRANT summary judgment to Breitling as to all remaining claims in the case and instruct the Clerk to close this case ... Because Solid 21's Fifth and Eighth Causes of Action are either trademark infringement claims or wholly derivative of trademark infringement claims, and because I have granted Breitling summary judgment on its fair use defense to trademark infringement, I grant summary judgment to Breitling as to the Fifth and Eighth Causes of Action as well.”

Nielsen v. Van Leuven
3:15-cv-01154-MPS · 2018-01-19
Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons discussed above, the motion for a new trial (ECF No. 144) is DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Denied

“Mr. Nielsen's motion to dismiss Ms. Van Leuven's counterclaims (ECF No. 127) is DENIED, reflecting the Court's oral denial of the motion on October 12, 2017.”

Olschafskie v. Town of Enfield
3:15-cv-00067-MPS · 2017-09-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons stated, I GRANT the motion for summary judgment for (1) all claims against Officer Yott; (2) the claims against the unidentified officer defendants; (3) the failure to intervene claims ... and (4) the plaintiff's Monell claim against the Town and Chief Sferrazza. The claims that remain for a jury to decide are: (1) § 1983 excessive force against Officer Worden; ...”

DrePaul v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
3:23-cv-00123-MPS · 2024-01-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons above, I grant the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) in part and I deny it in part. The case will proceed on Count III only.”

State of Connecticut v. Sandoz, Inc. (Tennessee state-law claims)
3:20-cv-00802-MPS · 2025-04-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied.”