Peter Jo Messitte

How Judge Messitte rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Messitte no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Position
district
Status
Deceased
Served
1993–2025
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1993-10-20
Education
Amherst College, B.A. (1963); University of Chicago Law School, J.D. (1966)
Signed orders read
27

How Judge Messitte decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In Davis Construction, Messitte applied the existing diversity rule while openly identifying the policy anomaly it produced.

“It makes no sense to treat an unincorporated insurance company differently from, say, an incorporated manufacturer for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.”

In Roe, he tested the statutory phrase against whether the supposed government badge actually existed.

“one might also ponder how it is possible to have a ‘colorable imitation’ of a badge, in this case a NASA ”police” badge, that does not exist.”

In Dorsey, he found the employee settlements voluntary and unsupported by evidence of wrongful interference.

“Home Depot engaged in no wrongful conduct in pursuing the settlements and Dorsey has alleged and proved none.”

Procedural preferences

In Cohn, Messitte questioned procedure that had delayed the underlying foreclosure rather than advancing it.

“It is hard to resist the temptation to question why this case has proceeded as it has.”

In Zell, he stressed that a pleading-stage motion required acceptance of the plaintiff’s allegations.

“the Court is obliged to accept Zell’s allegations as true.”

In IA Labs, he required a judgment debtor seeking a stay to provide adequate security.

“this Court rejects as adequate security two assets that have an exceedingly indeterminate value”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Montgomery County, Maryland v. Barwood, Inc.
· 2009-12-18
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant county) Granted

“The decision of the Bankruptcy Court is therefore REVERSED.”

United States v. ECC Partners, L.P.
· 2011-08-25
Motion in opposition to receiver recommendation (claimant) Denied

“ECentury’s Motion in Opposition to the Receiver’s Recommended Disposition of Claims is DENIED.”

Littleton v. Prince George’s County, Maryland
· 2011-06-21
Renewed motion for summary judgment (defendant officer) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Swonger’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [Document No. 89] as to all Counts.”

Stevens v. Showalter
· 2011-08-30
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant) Denied

“the decision of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED”

TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. v. UsGen New England, Inc.
· 2011-08-30
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant) Denied

“the decision of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED in its entirety”

Epie v. Caterisano
· 2005-09-28
Motions to remand (defendant agency) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion for Remand is DENIED;”

Dorsey v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
· 2003-07-11
Supplemental motion for summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Home Depot’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 66) is GRANTED;”

United States v. Roe
· 2008-08-12
Motion for judgment of acquittal (defendant) Granted

“Defendant John Alvin Roe’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal as to Count Two of the Indictment is GRANTED.”

Syrja v. Westat, Inc.
· 2010-11-02
Motion for conditional class certification (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Conditional Class Certification [Paper No. 14] and Plaintiffs Supplement to Motion for Conditional Class Certification [Paper No. 23] are DENIED.”

Supplement to motion for conditional class certification (plaintiff) Denied
Zell v. Donley
· 2010-09-22
Motions to dismiss (federal defendants) Denied

“the Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Zell’s Title VII claims is DENIED.”

Hylind v. Xerox Corporation
· 2010-09-17
Motion for economic damages (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs Motion for Economic Damages [Paper No. 298] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;”

Motion for injunctive relief (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief [Paper No. 297] is DENIED;”

Motion for judicial notice of legislation (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for the Court to Take Notice of New Legislation [Paper No. 353] is DENIED;”

Motion for judicial notice of decision (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for the Court to take Judicial Notice of New Supreme Court Decision [Paper No. 372] is DENIED;”

Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions [Paper No. 363] is DENIED;”

Motions to strike (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s Motion to Strike [Paper No. 362] is MOOT.”

James v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
· 2009-08-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant transit authority) Granted

“the Court GRANTS WMATA’s Motion to Dismiss”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 174 days (N = 10).

A fixed sample of ten terminated historical cases included three contract matters, two Social Security matters, and one each involving prisoner civil rights, habeas, a federal construction-bond claim, employee benefits, and employment civil rights. None retained a motion-entry timeline.

A historical record

Judge Messitte 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.