Elaine Patricia Bucklo
How Judge Bucklo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
She reads the §1447(c) remand command strictly: once it appears the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction (including when a removing defendant disavows it), remand to state court is MANDATORY and she will not reach a contested standing/Spokeo question merely to issue what would be an advisory ruling for the state court. A removed federal-statute claim that both sides agree cannot proceed federally goes back to state court, not to dismissal.
“with no party willing to overcome the presumption against federal jurisdiction, remand is appropriate on any analysis.”
At the pleading stage she treats statute-of-limitations / failure-to-timely-exhaust as an affirmative defense that ordinarily cannot support dismissal unless the complaint itself pleads every element of the defense; and she will not use Rule 12(b)(6) to strike individual legal theories from an otherwise plausible claim. Plead around a limitations defense only if the face of the complaint forces it.
“a court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim but may not strike individual legal theories from the complaint”
Procedural preferences
She enforces §1447(c) fee-shifting against a party whose removal lacked an objectively reasonable basis — here awarding the plaintiff her full removal-related attorneys' fees where the defendant asserted federal jurisdiction on removal and then immediately disavowed it to seek a dismissal with prejudice. Removal as a tactic, not a genuine bid for a federal forum, can cost fees.
“plaintiff is entitled to recover her attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of removal.”
Cautions
Local Rule 56.1 is enforced strictly: a non-movant (even one represented by counsel) who fails to cite specific portions of the record in opposing summary judgment has the movant's statement of material facts DEEMED ADMITTED, and the court will not scour the record on the non-movant's behalf. Incorporating a companion case's briefs is not a substitute for record citations tailored to this plaintiff.
“It is not the duty of the court to scour the record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment; rather, the nonmoving party bears the responsibility of identifying the evidence upon which he relies.”
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 = 3 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to remand N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Granted: 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.
“For the foregoing reasons, I grant plaintiff’s motion for remand and attorneys’ fees and deny as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
“deny as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss”
“defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted only as to defendant IDCMS and is otherwise denied.”
“I grant (1) the individual defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and (2) the City’s motion to dismiss.”
“I grant (1) the individual defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and (2) the City’s motion to dismiss.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 109.0 days (N = 18).
Sampled via two filing windows (2021 and 2022) plus a current-docket pull. As a senior judge she still draws a full civil mix: 'Schedule A' IP/counterfeiting (trademark/copyright/patent), ERISA/pension-fund collections, consumer/FCRA, civil rights (prison conditions, employment, accommodations), SSA appeals, personal injury, plus a criminal calendar (cr cases excluded from the duration sample).