Arlander Keys
Judge Keys no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Keys decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In employment-discrimination cases he treats an employer's shifting or internally contradictory explanations for an adverse action as evidence of pretext that precludes summary judgment -- here, a position statement citing performance deficiencies that the plaintiffs' own recent evaluations contradicted.
“the Court agrees that Moloris shifting explanations for the reasons it selected these specific Plaintiffs for termination casts doubt upon the veracity of each explanation.”
Procedural preferences
On Social Security review (his pre-bench expertise as a Chief ALJ) he applies the substantial-evidence standard, defers to ALJ findings that are even minimally articulated, but remands where the ALJ fails to build a 'logical bridge' to the conclusion -- here, an unexplained finding that the claimant could perform work at all exertional levels.
“Because the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion that Mr. Allen could perform all exertional levels of work, remand on this issue is warranted.”
Cautions
He calibrates emergency relief to the evidence actually shown, not the agency's headline numbers, and will not categorically bar a defendant from using frozen assets for reasonable defense fees before a final fraud determination.
“Here, there has been no final judgment; there has been no final determination concerning fraud and no final determination concerning the amount of any restitution.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, in part, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further action consistent with this Opinion.”
“the balance of harms weighs in favor of granting the requested relief. Accordingly, the Court grants the FTC's motion for preliminary injunctive relief and will enter a preliminary injunction order along the lines of that proposed by the FTC, with some revisions.”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have raised an inference that Molon's stated reason for terminating them — namely, a reduction in force — was a pretext for age discrimination. Accordingly, the Court finds that summary judgment in Moloris favor is inappropriate. Moloris motion for summary judgment [# 48] is Denied.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants Ms. Carnaghi's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 25] and denies the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 30]. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted. Defendant has failed to proffer evidence giving rise to a disputed issue of material fact on Plaintiff's contract and unjust enrichment claims. Therefore, summary judgment is warranted, and judgment is entered for Plaintiff in the amount of $200,841.53, plus the contractual amount of prejudgment interest.”
“GSF argues that summary judgment is warranted, because Ms. Anderson, its former employee, has failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that her termination violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (West 2008), or the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is Granted.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Similarly, Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Pacific Investment Management Company LLC's (PIMCO) motions are granted in part and denied in part. Defendant PIMCO Funds' motion is granted.”
“Accordingly, the Court denies the motions for summary judgment on this claim as well.”
“The case is before the Court on a number of motions, all of which are denied.”
“Square D's Motion to Compel Documents, to Deem the Attorney/Client Privilege Waived and for an In Camera Inspection of Documents Alleged to be Protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege [# 159] is granted in part and denied in part; the request for an in camera inspection is granted, the motion to compel discovery regarding communications between El and Siemens and El and its Insurer is granted (though such discovery is stayed pending claim construction); the motion to deem the attorney-client privilege waived is denied, as is Square D's request to compel deposition testimony concerning infringement opinions and changes made to El products on the basis of those opinions.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to bifurcate [# 157]; this makes particularly good sense in light of the Court's earlier decision to bifurcate El's counterclaims.”
“GSEC's motion to compel is granted.”
“The motion to compel is denied; by their own admission, the plaintiffs have the information they request in interrogatory number 1, and there is no reason to compel the defendants to provide it in some other format to them.”
“For the reasons explained above, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to compel production of the materials sought in the subpoena.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 738 days (N = 2).
Keys's docket combined full consent cases he carried to final judgment under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) -- including Social Security disability appeals (his pre-bench specialty as a Chief ALJ), employment-discrimination suits, and federal consumer-protection enforcement -- with a heavy volume of pretrial discovery supervision and settlement conferences in cases referred to him by district judges. The two durations below are from contested consent merits cases and are a tiny, selection-biased sample, not a random caseload median.
A historical record
Judge Keys 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.