Paul William Grimm
How Judge Grimm rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Grimm no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Grimm decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hall, Grimm treated unchallenged video as controlling when it clearly contradicted the nonmovant’s account.
“when video evidence, the authenticity and accuracy of which is not challenged, clearly discredits one party’s portrayal of the facts, a jury is not needed to decide the matter.”
In Simmons, Grimm tied the relator’s percentage to the practical value of his contribution to the government’s recovery.
“The case settled primarily as. a result of a substantial effort by the Government to investigate the facts and develop the claim. Thus, absent substantial or unique assistance, Simmons is entitled to an award at the lower end of the statutory range.”
In C B Structures, Grimm read the disputed contract term in the context of the proposal and information available to the drafter.
“Considering the Contract in the context of this unambiguous language in the Proposal Letter, I find that the Premium was a payment for costs that C B Structures would incur if it accelerated its schedule, to enable it to complete the Project by December 31, 2012.”
Procedural preferences
In Pegues, Grimm declined to convert a dismissal motion before discovery supplied a suitable factual record.
“Given the early stage of this litigation, the fact that discovery has not yet commenced, and the threadbare nature of Pegues’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, I decline to exercise that discretion here, and instead find that it would be premature to consider this motion as one for summary judgment.”
In Roberson, Grimm gave a pro se litigant a specific opportunity to cure before final dismissal.
“However, Plaintiff shall be granted twenty-one days to supplement his complaint to specify exactly how Defendants’ conduct is actionable and to address the deficiencies addressed in this Memorandum Opinion.”
In Russell, Grimm distinguished an unsuccessful claim from a frivolous filing when considering sanctions against a pro se party.
“Rather, it appears to me that Russell is making ‘a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law,’ as expressly is permitted by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b) (2).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“In sum, WMATA’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21, IS GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss shall be DENIED.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider will be DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, ECF No. 6, treated as a motion for summary judgment, IS DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF No. 6, IS DENIED *839WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being resubmitted on request, following the jury trial on the validity of the Arbitration Agreement.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 26, IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being resubmitted on request, following the jury trial on the validity of the Arbitration Agreement.”
“Defendants Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Ginnie Mae REMIC Trust 2010 HOl’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, *591IS GRANTED subject to Plaintiffs ability to supplement his complaint, as stated below;”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim IS GRANTED;”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs failure to accommodate claim IS DENIED;”
“Defendant’s motion for summary - ■ judgment on Plaintiffs retaliation claim IS GRANTED;”
“C B Structures’ motion for a declaratory judgment, construed as a motion for summary judgment on the meaning of ‘Premium,’ ECF No. 31, IS GRANTED, and Pepco’s motion for summary judgment on the same issue, ECF No. 32, IS DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs request for entry of a judgment by confession is, therefore, denied.”
“Plaintiffs Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts II & III shall be denied without prejudice, subject to being reasserted at the conclusion of discovery, if appropriate.”
“Defendants’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment as to All Counts shall be denied, also without prejudice, subject to being reasserted at the conclusion of discovery, if appropriate.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants Anita and Jeffrey D’Antonio’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED.”
“Relator’s Motion for Award of Relator’s Share, EOF No. 38, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;”
“The Government’s Cross-Motion for Determination of Relator’s Share, ECF No. 411, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and/or to Dismiss or Strike Plaintiffs Class Alegations is DENIED, and”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification is DENIED with leave to refile once Plaintiff obtains adequate factual support for its motion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 148 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 6 days (N = 8).
The fixed sample of ten terminated historical cases included two employment civil-rights matters, two mandamus matters, and one each involving insurance, agricultural law, ERISA, consumer credit, prisoner civil rights, and other civil rights.
A historical record
Judge Grimm 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.