Timothy J. Sullivan
How Judge Sullivan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Poe v. Wal-Mart, Sullivan granted defense summary judgment because the plaintiff lacked evidence of actual or constructive notice and Maryland law did not recognize the proposed mode-of-operation theory.
“Walmart's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.”
In Patterson v. Howard Memorial Hospital, Sullivan granted the employer summary judgment because the plaintiff did not establish causation or pretext on her disability-discrimination and retaliation claims.
“HMR's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38) will be granted, and judgment will be entered in favor of HMR.”
In Mason v. 7-Eleven, Sullivan granted the franchisor summary judgment because the franchisee was an independent contractor over which the franchisor lacked the right of control required for agency liability.
“7-Eleven's Motion (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.”
Cautions
In Rush v. O'Malley, Sullivan affirmed the benefits decision because substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge's residual-functional-capacity finding.
“the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) will be GRANTED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“HMR's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38) will be granted, and judgment will be entered in favor of HMR.”
“Walmart's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.”
“WMATA's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED.”
“Wal-Mart's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED.”
“Mr. Barber's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) will be DENIED, and the Acting Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) will be GRANTED.”
“the Acting Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) will be GRANTED.”
“Brewer M.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) will be DENIED, and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) will be GRANTED.”
“the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) will be GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 52) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED.”
“Exhibit (ECF No. 41) is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at the appropriate time.”
“Mr. Goldstein’s Motion (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED.”
“WMATA’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.”
“the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 315 days (N = 18).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 81 days (N = 1).
The sampled consent caseload includes personal-injury and motor-vehicle negligence actions, employment-discrimination claims, Social Security disability appeals, multiemployer-benefit-fund collections, insurance disputes, and removed contract and consumer matters. Transit-authority and other personal-injury cases are prominent in the sample, while the reviewed benefits appeals generally lasted about ten to fourteen months.
Put Judge Sullivan's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Sullivan actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Sullivan's own signed orders and cites them.