Mary Pat Thynge
Judge Thynge no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Thynge decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
She decides contract questions on Delaware's objective theory and will not let a drafting choice rewrite a deal: she construes clear terms by their ordinary meaning, refuses readings that render provisions 'meaningless or illusory,' and treats a forum-selection clause as permissive unless it excludes all other courts in 'crystalline' terms.
“if the forum selection provision does not state that it is exclusive in crystalline terms, our courts will construe the provision as permissive.”
On summary judgment she holds the line on genuine factual disputes: where expert and testimonial evidence cut both ways -- here on whether an employee was disabled or regarded as disabled and whether the employer engaged in the interactive accommodation process -- she recommends denying cross-motions and sending the dispute to trial rather than resolving it on paper.
“Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Robinson, First State's motion for summary judgment should be denied because there exists a genuine issue of a material fact on whether Robinson is disabled or was regarded as disabled.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“court recommends that the district court GRANT Frey's motion to dismiss (D.I. 8).”
“it is recommended that HostForWeb's motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaims (D.I. 30) be DENIED in Part and GRANTED in Part”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (D.I. 47) be DENIED.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendant's motion for summary judgment (D.I. 44) be DENIED.”
“Defendants fail to adequately plead a claim for negligent misrepresentation against plaintiffs. ... Defendants claim for breach of fiduciary duty is dismissed.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss the Am. Comp.(D.I. 55) be DENIED.”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint with Prejudice under FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (D.I. 59) be DENIED.”
“(1) Edgewell's motion for leave to amend and file its third amended complaint (D.I. 77) be DENIED.”
“Bosch's motion to compel (D.I. 114) is DENIED.”
“Pylon's oral motion to compel raised during hearing on October 19, 2009 is DENIED.”
“GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, consistent with this report and recommendation; (2) Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend Count V of the second amended complaint be GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint on or before April 23, 2010; (3) Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend Count VI of the second amended complaint be DENIED.”
“MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Karen Barkes is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that Defendant's motion for leave to amend its Answer to the Complaint (D.I. 33) be DENIED.”
“For the reasons contained herein, the court recommends defendants' motion for monetary and other sanctions (D. I. 15) be DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Her enumerated consent docket reflects a 636(c) and Social Security mix: Social Security disability appeals (the largest recurring category), diversity matters (product liability, motor-vehicle, contract), and at least one securities stockholder-derivative case. Across eight terminated consent cases the time from filing to termination ran from roughly 230 days for the Social Security appeals to about four years for the securities derivative matter, with the disability appeals clustering under a year and a half. Her substantial referral work -- the reports and recommendations she wrote for the district judges -- is not captured by the assigned-judge field and is represented in the published orders above.
A historical record
Judge Thynge 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.