Mark Lawrence Wolf
Judge Wolf no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Wolf decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a motion to dismiss he applies the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard strictly and will look to documents incorporated into or central to the complaint: where an authentic document contradicts a pleaded allegation, the document controls and the threadbare allegation is not accepted as true. A plaintiff opposing dismissal should plead concrete facts and reconcile them with the contract or record documents the claim depends on, not rest on conclusory assertions.
“When such documents contradict an allegation in the complaint, the document trumps the allegation.”
In consumer suits against regulated products he takes federal preemption seriously as a threshold merits defense, dismissing state-law consumer-protection and unjust-enrichment claims that conflict with the federal regulatory scheme governing the product. Framing a claim so it does not require the defendant to have done something federal law forbids or prevents is decisive.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, (Docket No. 50) is ALLOWED, and this case is DISMISSED.”
He treats expert-evidence gatekeeping as potentially dispositive: excluding a plaintiff's liability expert under the reliability standard can remove the only support for an essential element and lead directly to summary judgment for the defendant. Invest early in an admissible, methodologically defensible expert, because losing the Daubert motion can end the case.
“Therefore, judgment will be entered for the defendant.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Record (Docket No. 17) is DENIED.”
“The defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Record (Docket No. 19) is ALLOWED.”
“the court is allowing the defendant’s motion to exclude Thompson’s report and testimony.”
“Therefore, judgment will be entered for the defendant.”
“The Plaintiffs Motion to Remand (Docket No. 12) is DENIED.”
“The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Docket No. 6) is ALLOWED and this case is DISMISSED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 212) is DENIED, without prejudice to being renewed concerning the issues of direct employment and joint employment after damages are determined.”
“The motion for class certification (Docket No. 110) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 35) is ALLOWED. Judgment shall, therefore, enter for defendants.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 39) is DENIED.”
“Motion of Sandwich Water District and Bourne Water District to Intervene as *194Non-Aligned Parties (Docket No. 31) is MOOT.”
“Motion of the Town of Falmouth to Intervene as a Non-Aligned Party (Docket No. 50) is MOOT.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, (Docket No. 50) is ALLOWED, and this case is DISMISSED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Docket No. 52) is MOOT.”
“The Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Exhibits (Docket No. 108) is DENIED.”
“the defendant Dioceses and/or Churches of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 21) is ALLOWED.”
“The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 63) is ALLOWED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for a Civil Contempt Proceeding (Docket No. 67) is DENIED.”
“The Motions to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 13 & 30) are ALLOWED. Counts I, II, and X are DISMISSED with prejudice. All other claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (Docket No. 19) is ALLOWED.”
“Defendant MRD's Motion to Repossess Motor Vehicle (Docket No. 21) is DENIED without prejudice to being reinstituted in the courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
“Defendant 3M's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 34) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 17) is DENIED as to Count I, alleging misrepresentation, and as to Counts III and IV to the extent that they allege that statements on defendants' website violated Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A. The Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED as to Count II, with respect to Counts III and IV to the extent that they allege the statements on Extra Stout's bottle and carton labels violate Chapter 93A, and as to the remaining counts in their entirety.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Docket No. 22) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 563 days (N = 15).
Across a four-decade tenure the sampled docket spans habeas corpus and prisoner civil-rights petitions, patent and copyright suits, ERISA and labor cases, product-liability and diversity actions, securities and commodities matters, False Claims Act qui tam actions, mortgage-foreclosure and consumer-finance disputes, environmental (Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act) litigation, and immigration mandamus and detention cases. The listed examples describe the range of cases reviewed, not a quantitative measure of his full caseload.
A historical record
Judge Wolf 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.