Jon David Levy
Judge Levy no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Levy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a fraudulent-joinder-style dismissal fight over federal-question jurisdiction, treats the moving party's assertion of the jurisdictional theory it pled as controlling, and moots out alternative jurisdictional theories the plaintiff had not squarely pled.
“the City's Renewed Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED premised on Federated's assertion of federal question jurisdiction”
Read a newer Supreme Court decision (Janus v. AFSCME) narrowly against a party's argument that it silently overruled controlling circuit precedent, finding the new decision's own reasoning cut against the party invoking it.
“Janus itself suggests that the Act satisfies the exacting scrutiny standard ... Janus did not overrule or unsettle the Knight or D'Agostino decisions, both of which are binding precedent.”
Treats information underlying a drug-trafficking search warrant as resistant to a staleness challenge because ongoing drug conspiracies extend the useful life of surveillance evidence.
“the underlying facts contained in the affidavit pointed to an ongoing drug distribution scheme, and "it is common ground that drug conspiracies tend to be ongoing operations, rendering timely information that might, in other contexts, be regarded as stale."”
Procedural preferences
Requires a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief to allege facts showing a real and immediate threat of similar future harm; past injury alone, even a serious one, is not enough for standing.
“The Amended Complaint does not allege any facts suggesting that the Plaintiffs are likely to be detained in the United States in connection with a pollution event again. ... Because the Amended Complaint does not allege that the Plaintiffs face a real and immediate threat of similar future harm, the Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue injunctive relief.”
On a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment, declines to resolve fact-intensive elements of the charged offense that depend on context best developed at trial, reserving them for the jury.
“All of the facts that gave rise to the context surrounding Dennison's alleged tweet will be critical to the ultimate decision of whether he made a true threat. That inquiry is not for me, as the Judge, to resolve at this preliminary stage but must instead be preserved for the jury as the ultimate trier of fact.”
Declined to sanction opposing counsel for filing a parallel state-court action while proceedings were pending here, where counsel had a plausible, good-faith jurisdictional basis for the parallel filing rather than an intent to frustrate the federal case.
“Defense counsel's decision to file the State action fell well within the bounds of an appropriate effort to protect a client's interest in the face of uncertainty, and was neither a duplicitous attempt to circumvent this Court or to frustrate the City's adversary, as Federated suggests.”
Cautions
A Monell municipal-liability claim requires more than conclusory allegations that officials should have been better trained; the complaint must plead facts about the actual training given or a pattern of similar violations, or that the need for particular training was obvious.
“The Complaint is devoid of alleged facts which could plausibly show a pattern of constitutional violations by untrained staff members, or that the need to train staff members on "parental rights in the gender identity context" was so obvious as to support a finding of deliberate indifference.”
A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to introduce evidence a defendant could have obtained earlier through due diligence, even where the material was genuinely hard to find within a large record.
“This portion of the video falls squarely in the category of evidence that, "in the exercise of due diligence[] could have been presented earlier." ... the evidence is not newly discovered.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Maine Department of Corrections' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED.”
“Nobrega's Objection to Removal (ECF No. 5) and Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7) are DENIED.”
“the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. Wrobel's Complaint is DISMISSED and the Clerk's Office is instructed to close the case.”
“Wrobel's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 20) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 17) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Commissioner's decision (ECF No. 5-2 at 14-55) is AFFIRMED.”
“Northern Clearing's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.”
“the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED and the Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“I deny his motion for a preliminary injunction, grant the Union's, the University and the Board's, and the State's motions to dismiss, and order the dismissal of this case.”
“Reisman's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 5) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint a Second Time (ECF No. 64) is: 1. DENIED with respect to all claims against Defendants Citizens Bank, N.A. and PNC Bank, N.A. ... 4. GRANTED conditionally with respect to the fraud claims against the NCSLT defendants ... 5. GRANTED in all other respects.”
“the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2254 Petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should issue.”
“the City's Renewed Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED premised on Federated's assertion of federal question jurisdiction”
“the City's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Stay Proceedings based on Federal Abstention (ECF No. 42) is DENIED as moot”
“Federated's Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin State Proceedings (ECF No. 50) is DENIED as moot”
“Federated's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 53) is DENIED.”
“Congo's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence (ECF No. 116) is DENIED.”
“Brian Dennison's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.”
“Mulkern's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 129) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 141 days (N = 5).
The sampled dockets spanned prisoner civil-rights suits, a habeas petition from a psychiatric-facility resident, Social Security appeals, employment and insurance disputes, mortgage foreclosures, and a drug-trafficking prosecution. Several sampled civil cases ended in settlement or voluntary dismissal rather than a contested ruling, consistent with a civil docket where most cases resolve before judgment.
A historical record
Judge Levy 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.