Madeline Cox Arleo
How Judge Arleo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At the pleading stage she declines to dismiss alternative ERISA section 502(a)(3) equitable claims as duplicative of section 502(a)(1)(B) benefit claims; reformation/rescission availability depends on the totality of circumstances and is premature to resolve on a 12(b)(6) motion, though she signals the duplicative claims can be revisited later.
“several courts in this district and circuit have found that Varity does not establish a bright line rule precluding the assertion of alternative claims under sections 502(a)(1)(B) and 502(a)(3) at the motion to dismiss stage.”
Procedural preferences
Rigorously enforces Article III standing as a threshold issue and applies TransUnion strictly: in a consumer FDCPA case, a plaintiff's confusion, fear, or emotional distress from a misleading letter -- without reliance or a concrete downstream consequence -- is not an injury in fact, and the absence of standing defeats even a certified class on summary judgment.
“merely receiving a letter from a debt collector that was confusing or misleading . . . does not demonstrate a harm closely related to fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation -- both of which require some form of reliance.”
Will not rule on a default-judgment motion submitted without a supporting brief; expects the movant to specify the causes of action and prove damages, and dismisses the motion without prejudice to refile rather than guessing.
“Absent a brief, it is unclear under which causes of action Plaintiffs move for default judgment. The Motion is DISMISSED without prejudice”
Cautions
Abstains under Colorado River from federal FDCPA/consumer-fraud suits that are collateral attacks on a parallel pending state foreclosure; such suits, if allowed, would 'throw into turmoil' the parties' rights and the comity between courts, and the state court is an adequate forum for the federal claims.
“This district has repeatedly invoked Colorado River to abstain from hearing what amount to collateral attacks on pending state foreclosure actions.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 3 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 2 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Default judgment N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to decertify class N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that Okonite's motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 57, is DENIED as to Counts Two and Three but GRANTED as to Count Four”
“ORDERED that the Novartis Defendants' motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 62, is DENIED as to Counts Two and Three, DENIED as to Count Four against Novartis, but GRANTED as to Count Four against PSE&G and NRG.”
“Balancing all the factors, the Court finds abstention is warranted in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's case is dismissed without prejudice... Defendants' motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 5, is GRANTED.”
“Absent a brief, it is unclear under which causes of action Plaintiffs move for default judgment. The Motion is DISMISSED without prejudice, and Plaintiffs may refile the Motion with a brief”
“Plaintiffs have failed to establish that they have suffered a concrete harm sufficient to establish standing, and therefore the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over their claims. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
“Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 131, is DENIED”
“the Motion to Decertify the Class, ECF No. 124, is DENIED AS MOOT.”