James Tyne Moody

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana district Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 18 signed orders read

How Judge Moody decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He denies qualified-immunity motions to dismiss at the pleading stage where prolonged detention beyond lawful authority (holding a detainee past the 48-hour ICE-detainer window after bond) states a clearly-established Fourteenth Amendment due-process violation.

“For the foregoing reasons, defendants motion to dismiss (DE # 16) is DENIED.”

At prisoner screening, he allows retaliation and excessive-force claims to proceed where the complaint plausibly connects a protected complaint to targeted property removal and a threat of violence, and alleges mace was used although the prisoner posed no threat.

“GRANTS Tyrone Powers-Ivey leave to proceed against Officer R. Harris in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for retaliating against him”

Cautions

On a Title VII summary-judgment motion he grants judgment for the employer where the plaintiff cannot connect critical or unpleasant workplace comments to the protected characteristic; isolated remarks untethered to gender are not evidence of discriminatory motive.

“there is nothing that links these comments to gender discrimination.”

In Indiana product-liability crashworthiness cases he grants summary judgment for the manufacturer where the plaintiff lacks the expert testimony the Indiana Products Liability Act requires and offers only circumstantial evidence of a defect.

“Ford's motion for summary judgment (DE # 20) is GRANTED; its alternative motion for sanctions is denied as moot.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Batchelor v. Merck & Co., Inc.
651 F. Supp. 2d 818 · 2008-12-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons explained below, the court grants the motion for summary judgment.”

Graber v. Mad Brewer, Inc.
773 F. Supp. 2d 765 · 2011-02-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons explained below, the motion will be granted.”

Rivas v. Martin
781 F. Supp. 2d 775 · 2011-03-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, defendants motion to dismiss (DE # 16) is DENIED.”

Trzeciak v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
809 F. Supp. 2d 900 · 2011-08-15
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“State Farm's motion for summary judgment (DE # 14) is GRANTED. ... The clerk is directed to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of State Farm Fire & Casualty Company.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company's motion to strike (DE # 24) is DENIED.”

Motion to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs third motion to amend (DE # 34) is GRANTED. However, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company is DISMISSED from the complaint.”

Pierson v. National Institute for Labor Relations Research
319 F. Supp. 3d 1100 · 2018-03-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“defendants' motion to dismiss (DE # 6) will be denied.”

Piltch v. Ford Motor Co.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41891 · 2014-03-28
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Ford's motion for summary judgment (DE # 20) is GRANTED; its alternative motion for sanctions is denied as moot.”

Gordon v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112267 · 2013-08-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (DE # 27) and Safeguard Properties, LLC (DE # 18) have both moved to dismiss Counts A, B, D, E, and F of plaintiffs Gerald Gordon and Tahara Brown's complaint. For the following reasons, those motions are granted in part and denied in part.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“those motions are granted in part and denied in part.”

Hathaway v. Cintas Corporate Services, Inc.
903 F. Supp. 2d 669 · 2012-10-11
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant Cintas Corporate Services #2 d/b/a Cintas Corporation ("Cintas") has moved for summary judgment on Counts I, II, and III of plaintiffs' complaint. (DE # 105.) For the following reasons, that motion is granted in part and denied in part.”

Weeks v. Hodges
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66315 · 2012-05-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“This matter is before the court on defendants' motion for summary judgment. (DE # 38.) For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.”

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Drywall Service & Supply Co.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9820 · 2010-02-03
Motion to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“the motion to amend the complaint will be DENIED and the motion to modify the deposition deadline will be GRANTED.”

Teklehaimanot v. Park Center, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39402 · 2011-04-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Park Center, Inc. ("Park Center") has moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims. ... For the reasons explained below, the motion will be granted.”

Brown v. Purdue University North Central
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18754 · 2015-02-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the court GRANTS defendants' motion for summary judgment (DE # 23) as to all of plaintiffs claims except his claim against defendant Huley for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

Put Judge Moody's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Moody actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Moody's own signed orders and cites them.