Anthony Alfred Alaimo
Judge Alaimo no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Alaimo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In contract disputes, Alaimo centered the language the parties chose and rejected an insurer's attempt to add a remarriage limitation absent from the policy and statute.
“Defendant has a contractual right to the proceeds of the policy. This right vested on the death of the insured.”
For expert causation evidence, he demanded a scientifically grounded connection to the alleged exposure rather than a physician's unexplained possibility.
“The proposed testimony of Chiem is nothing more than ‘pure speculation presented in the guise of legitimate scientifically-based expert opinion’ that must be excluded as evidence.”
Procedural preferences
He excused delayed service where the plaintiff acted promptly after learning of the defect and the defendants' conduct supported waiver.
“the Court finds that there is good cause to excuse plaintiff’s lack of timely service of process and, further, finds a waiver by the defendants regarding any defective service.”
On a sprawling civil-rights record, he separated claims and capacities rather than treating summary judgment as an all-or-nothing proposition.
“summary judgment for Defendants will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Cautions
He imposed Rule 11 fees when even a cursory statutory review would have shown that the pleaded federal theory did not cover the alleged discrimination.
“Even a cursory review of the Title VII statutes reveals to any licensed attorney that plaintiff’s injuries could not be remedied under those provisions.”
He enforced congressionally fixed claim periods where a predecessor's documented notice made a later property challenge stale.
“The Court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted.”
“Accordingly, the state claims for violation of O.C.G.A. § 34-6A-1 et seq., breach of public duty and fraud are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“By Order of October 5, 1984, the Court granted defendant’s motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, holding that ‘plaintiff and his counsel shall pay reasonable attorney’s fees to defendant’s counsel for the time expended in prosecuting defendant’s motion to dismiss.’”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order of October 5, 1984, is hereby DENIED.”
“Upon consideration thereof, said motion is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED, and the insurer is absolved from all further responsibility regarding the Coats’ insurance policy.”
“Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is DENIED.”
“As previously mentioned, defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate’s Order of May 29, 1991, is similarly DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment is hereby GRANTED in favor of Turecamo.”
“For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment for Defendant, David Herrin, in his individual and official capacity is GRANTED on Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claims in Count I of their Complaint. Summary judgment for Herrin in his individual and official capacity is GRANTED on Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims in Count II of their Complaint. Summary judgment for Herrin in his individual and official capacity is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims in Count III of their Complaint.”
“Defendant’s Motion in Limine to exclude all such testimony by Chiem is GRANTED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(2) is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Partial Dismissal is (1) GRANTED as to Galliher’s claim that she is entitled to receive a maximum of $600,000 in compensatory damages under § 1981a, (2) GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as to the claim that Galliher’s EEO rights were violated, and (3) DENIED AS MOOT as to the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; §§ 514 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791 and 794; and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Riffle’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Walker’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the United States’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED”
“Brewer’s motion for leave to amend is DISMISSED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The enumerated 2006 cohort was dominated by federal and state habeas petitions and prisoner civil-rights matters, with additional contract, Social Security, and criminal cases. This narrow historical cohort is not a career-wide caseload estimate.
A historical record
Judge Alaimo 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.