Joseph H. Young
How Judge Young rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Young no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Young decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Main, Young construed an ambiguous retirement provision in light of its remedial purpose rather than limiting eligibility to current employees.
“In the present case, the ambiguous language of the Montgomery County Code regarding eligibility to apply for service-connected disability retirement should be liberally construed to effectuate the benevolent purpose for which it was enacted.”
In Young v. National Center, he applied procedural requirements equally despite the plaintiff’s earlier lack of counsel.
“Nonetheless, however tolerant the court may be of administrative or presentational inelegance on the part of pro se plaintiffs, the rules of procedure apply equally to represented and unrepresented parties.”
In Zeneca, he treated vacatur as eliminating the earlier judgment’s preclusive force.
“A vacated judgment is typically considered a legal nullity and does not have preclusive effect.”
Procedural preferences
In Jiffy Lube, Young denied a second amendment that would not materially clarify the remaining claims.
“The Court concludes that the proposed amendment would not serve any useful purpose at this time and will deny Plaintiffs’ motion.”
In Stitz, he resolved uncertainty about substantially related prior representation in favor of protecting client confidences.
“Therefore, consistent with Clarkson’s holding that all doubts are to be resolved in favor of disqualification, Levasseur will be disqualified from further participation in this lawsuit.”
In Cooke, Young deferred an immunity-based dismissal question where witness credibility could best be assessed at trial.
“Cooke’s truthfulness, as well as that of Kohler and Matheson, can best be ascertained at trial.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Summary judgment is granted in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability for 183 violations of the Clean Water Act;”
After a bench trial, Young entered judgment for the defendants because the contract claim was filed outside Maryland’s three-year limitations period.
“The Court concludes that the procedural requirements of Rule 68 are non-severable and Defendant’s failure to serve timely its Offer of Judgment precludes a subsequent recovery of costs based upon that same Offer.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the government’s motion regarding bail pending appeal is denied.”
“That plaintiffs motion for summary judgment BE, and the same IS, hereby GRANTED;”
“Since Roarda has not provided any evidence which might lead a jury to return a verdict in its favor, the Court grants the government’s motion for summary judgment.”
“Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the $33,000 United States Currency is forfeited to the government.”
“Therefore, this Court should not expand the application of the Maryland attachment statute, and plaintiff’s motion for writ of attachment before judgment must be denied.”
“That Ernst & Young’s Motion to Unseal, BE, and the same IS hereby GRANTED;”
“That Ernst & Young’s Motion for Relief and supplemental request seeking the unsealing of informal discovery materials, BE, and the same IS hereby DENIED without prejudice to being reconsidered if appropriate;”
“That Plaintiff’s Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint BE and the same IS hereby DENIED, without prejudice to being reconsidered if appropriate;”
“That plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint BE, and the same IS, hereby DENIED;”
“That defendant’s motion to dismiss BE, and the same IS, hereby GRANTED.”
“That the defendant’s motion to disqualify George Levasseur as counsel for the plaintiff BE, and the same IS, hereby GRANTED;”
“Accordingly, absent some evidence that Levasseur transmitted confidential information to Margolis, Pritzker, Bethlehem’s motion to disqualify that firm will be denied.”
Young dismissed the complaint as frivolous during review of the plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment, without resolving a party-filed merits motion.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 2744 days (N = 10).
A seed-based sample of ten among the twenty oldest returned assigned cases included seven asbestos product-liability matters and one each involving civil rights, another statutory action, and labor standards. Every sampled case was terminated, and none retained a motion-entry timeline.
A historical record
Judge Young 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.