Joseph Martin Hood
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.”
Strong FAA pro-arbitration tilt; Colorado River abstention treated as an extraordinary and narrow exception, and non-diverse related-action parties rarely indispensable under Rule 19.
“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
Decides cross-motions for summary judgment on the law where the material facts are undisputed; expects parties to brief the dispositive legal issue squarely.
“The material facts in this case are undisputed and straightforward.”
Cautions
Diligence in effecting service matters; Hood will dismiss under Rule 4(m) and refuse a discretionary extension even when the statute of limitations makes the dismissal effectively fatal.
“the Court sees no reason to reward their laxity with an extension of time.”
Conclusory, hyperbolic, or rhetorical argument draws an explicit rebuke and a direction to the controlling authority. Brief substance, not adjectives.
“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.”
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.
| Summary judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 2Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to compel arbitration N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for extension of time N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Judgment on pleadings 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.
“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”