Steven L. Tiscione
How Judge Tiscione decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On supplemental/pendent jurisdiction he follows the default rule strictly: once the federal anchor claims are withdrawn or dismissed, he declines to retain state-law claims absent exceptional circumstances (important federal-policy questions, or a case on the eve of trial after discovery and dispositive motions). A mid-discovery posture weighs against retention even when refiling is inconvenient.
“in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered ... will point toward declining jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims”
On settlement approvals (FLSA Cheeks and infant compromises) he applies the fairness factors seriously — arm's-length negotiation, experienced counsel, sufficient discovery — and will direct supplemental submissions (e.g. exactly how infant settlement funds are disbursed) before recommending approval.
“I conclude that the settlement is fair and reasonable because it is the result of arm’s length negotiations, after the completion of substantive discovery, and has been endorsed by the infant plaintiffs’ natural guardian and attorney”
Procedural preferences
On default judgments he does not over-award: he will deny a deficient first default-judgment motion without prejudice to cure, and even when granting liability he denies prejudgment interest and costs without prejudice to renew with adequate support. Come back with the math.
“recommending that I grant the plaintiffs default judgment motion ... and deny the plaintiffs requests for interest and costs without prejudice to renew”
Admiralty Limitation of Liability Act: the vessel owner's six-month clock starts when a claimant gives written notice (even a state complaint seeking unspecified damages from which it is reasonably possible to infer the claim may exceed the vessel's value), and the owner bears the burden to seek clarification. File within six months or the petition is dismissed as untimely.
“this Petition was not filed within six months of the Petitioner’s receipt of the Claimants’ notice of the claim. Accordingly, I respectfully recommend that the Petition be dismissed as untimely”
Cautions
A stay or receivership order issued in another district is read narrowly to the entities it actually names; he will not extend an out-of-district receivership stay to individual defendants the issuing court deliberately excluded.
“deny the motion to stay the action against the Individual Defendants because the Notice of Receivership and Stay issued by Judge Gayles does not apply to the Individual Defendants”
He uses sua sponte Rule 41(b) dismissal with prejudice for plaintiffs who stop prosecuting their claims; pro se status does not shield an unresponsive plaintiff.
“a Sua Sponte Report and Recommendation recommending that the claims of Plaintiffs ... be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b)”
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.
| Default judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for settlement approval N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to stay N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Limitation of liability petition N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“As recommended by Judge Tiscione, plaintiff's motion for a default judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion is granted with respect to defendant Johnny's Restaurant ... liability under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 605, and denied with respect to defendant Savatri Lall. ... Plaintiff is awarded $7046.50”
“I conclude that the settlement is fair and reasonable because it is the result of arm’s length negotiations, after the completion of substantive discovery, and has been endorsed by the infant plaintiffs’ natural guardian and attorney. Therefore ... I recommend that the proposed infant compromise order ... should be GRANTED.”
SUA SPONTE Rule 41(b) dismissal: Tiscione sua sponte R&R (2019-05-29) recommending dismissal with prejudice of two plaintiffs' claims for failure to prosecute; ADOPTED by District Judge Nina Gershon (unopposed, no clear error). Dispositive non-motion ruling -> EXCLUDED from motion stats (no moving party).
“In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione recommended that I deny the plaintiffs motion without prejudice to refile, a recommendation that I adopted on March 19, 2018.”
“Judge Tiscione issued a thorough and well-reasoned R&R recommending that I grant the plaintiffs default judgment motion and find the defendant liable for breach of the personal guarantee, enter a judgment in the amount of $142,150.92, and deny the plaintiffs requests for interest and costs without prejudice to renew. ... I adopt Judge Tiscione’s comprehensive R&R in its entirety.”
“Judge Tiscione recommends that the Court deny the motion to stay the action against the Individual Defendants because the Notice of Receivership and Stay issued by Judge Gayles does not apply to the Individual Defendants ... the Court denies Dorfman’s motion to stay”
“Judge Tiscione recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against the Individual Defendants without prejudice, and that Plaintiff be granted leave to file an amended complaint. ... the Court denies ... Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against the Individual Defendants without prejudice”
“I find that “the agreement reflects a reasonable compromise of disputed issues [rather] than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought about by an employer's overreaching.” ... I therefore recommend that the settlement be approved, and the case be dismissed with prejudice.”
“I recommend that the balance of factors weighs against retaining pendent jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss should be GRANTED. ... Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should therefore be granted and Defendant’s counterclaims and third-party complaint should be dismissed without prejudice.”
“As this Court has recommended declining pendent jurisdiction, this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant’s counterclaim. This Court should thus DENY Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
“I conclude that this Petition was not filed within six months of the Petitioner’s receipt of the Claimants’ notice of the claim. Accordingly, I respectfully recommend that the Petition be dismissed as untimely.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Not enumerated this build. Central Islip (Suffolk/Nassau) magistrate; referral docket observed in GovInfo spans FLSA/NYLL wage (Cheeks settlements, default judgments), FCA anti-piracy, TCPA, trust/estate fiduciary-duty, admiralty (Limitation of Liability), and §1983 civil-rights cases.