Joseph Martin Hood
How Judge Hood rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Hood no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Hood
Joseph M. Hood is a senior judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush, he assumed senior status on October 14, 2007, and inactive status on October 14, 2022.
How Judge Hood decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Forum-state public policy can override the most-significant-relationship choice-of-law test, even when that test points elsewhere. KY public policy (KRS 304.39-320 bars UIM setoff) carried the day for the KY-resident plaintiff.
“notwithstanding the outcome of the most significant relationship analysis, the Kentucky legislature and Kentucky courts have recognized that setoff provisions in insurance policies violate the public policy of Kentucky. As a result, Kentucky law applies to interpretation of the contract based on the Kentucky public policy exception.”
In a case seeking to compel arbitration while related state litigation was pending, Hood declined Colorado River abstention after finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a refusal to exercise federal jurisdiction.
“On balance, the circumstances in this matter do not present the 'exceptional' circumstances necessary to compel this Court to abandon the 'virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them.'”
Procedural preferences
In Tritschler v. Haire, Hood decided cross-motions for summary judgment on a stock-return dispute after finding the material facts undisputed.
“The material facts in this case are undisputed and straightforward.”
In a wage case, the court allowed a timely state-law amendment but refused an expanded federal claim as time-barred. Counsel seeking leave to amend had to address futility claim by claim.
“Because Plaintiff’s claims under the FLSA are time-barred and because Plaintiff’s claims under Kentucky’s minimum wage law are not, Plaintiff’s motion must be granted in part and denied in part.”
In an insurance dispute, the court kept related contract and bad-faith claims together during discovery; a privilege log could address confidentiality concerns, and the defendant could renew bifurcation nearer trial if the facts changed.
“These concerns can be adequately addressed through a privilege log.”
Cautions
In Buckland v. Stanley, Hood denied an extension of time to serve and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims without prejudice under Rule 4(m). He cited their lack of diligence in locating and serving defendants, even though the statute of limitations could prevent a new suit.
“On the facts before it in the instant matter, the Court is unmoved by the potential loss of a cause of action.”
In K.G. v. Board of Education of Woodford County, Hood rebuked counsel's rhetoric about 'procedural card tricks' and 'soundbites' and called for legal argument.
“This Court is unimpressed with such hyperbole, and reminds Plaintiffs' counsel that it does not deal in 'procedural card tricks' or 'soundbites,' but in legal argument.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Record No. 46] shall be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED”
“that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [Record No. 38] shall be, and the same hereby is DENIED”
“that Defendant Linda Stanley's Motion to Dismiss [DE 3] is GRANTED; ... Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5).”
“that Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time to Serve Jeremy Stanley, Aritta Becksted, and Loryn Shepherd [DE 6] is DENIED”
“That Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE 8] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“That Plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Consideration of Complaint to Enforce the Alternative Resolution Agreement and to Compel Defendants to Submit Their Claims to Arbitration [DE 4] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“that the Board's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant J.C.S. in his official capacity, [DE 29], is, and hereby shall be, GRANTED; and ... the Plaintiffs' claims against J.C.S. in his official capacity SHALL be DISMISSED.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment [DE 8] is DENIED”
“Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [DE 9] is GRANTED”
“Defendants’ Motion for Attorney Fees [Record No. 121] shall be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Discovery [D.E. 26] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [D.E. 20] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw and Amend Responses to KU’s Request for Admissions [D.E. 24] is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for a Continuance to Complete Additional Discovery [D.E. 26] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to File an Amended Complaint [D.E. 25] is GRANTED.”
“Because Plaintiff’s claims under the FLSA are time-barred and because Plaintiff’s claims under Kentucky’s minimum wage law are not, Plaintiff’s motion must be granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, [DE 109, 120] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Starbucks’s motion for summary judgment [DE 6] is GRANTED;”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Hood was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2024.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 10 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 13 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 36 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 12 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Hood no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.