Paul G. Gardephe
How Judge Gardephe decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At summary judgment he adjudicates claim-by-claim rather than wholesale: he denies the motion on claims where the record shows genuine disputes of material fact (here, whether the demotion was motivated by pregnancy) while granting it on claims that fail for want of evidence (the retaliation claim, where there was no proof the decisionmaker even knew of the protected report). A movant should expect each claim weighed on its own record, not an all-or-nothing ruling.
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18) will be DENIED as to Herbert’s discrimination claims, because there are material issues of fact as to whether Dixon’s decision to demote Herbert was motivated in whole or in part by Herbert’s pregnancy. Defendants’ motion will be GRANTED as to the whistleblower retaliation claim, however, because there is no evidence that Dixon was aware — prior to demoting Herbert — that Herbert had reported her alleged misconduct to school district authorities.”
Procedural preferences
He readily exercises supplemental jurisdiction over state-law wage and contract claims tied to a federal FLSA overtime claim, denying Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attacks where the claims share a common factual nucleus. A defendant trying to peel state wage claims out of an FLSA suit on jurisdictional grounds will usually lose.
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion will otherwise be DENIED.”
Cautions
On negligent-hiring/supervision/retention claims he enforces the notice element strictly: a plaintiff must come forward with evidence that the institutional defendant knew or should have known of the wrongdoer's propensity, and absent that evidence the claim fails as a matter of law at summary judgment -- sympathy for the underlying harm does not substitute for proof of notice.
“Because Plaintiff has offered no evidence that Defendants knew or should have known of Father Kennedy’s alleged propensity to commit sexual abuse, Plaintiffs negligence claims fail as a matter of law, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be granted.”
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.
| Summary judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for judgment on pleadings N = 1 |
Granted: 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.
“Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings will be GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 18) will be DENIED as to Herbert’s discrimination claims, because there are material issues of fact as to whether Dixon’s decision to demote Herbert was motivated in whole or in part by Herbert’s pregnancy. Defendants’ motion will be GRANTED as to the whistleblower retaliation claim, however, because there is no evidence that Dixon was aware — prior to demoting Herbert — that Herbert had reported her alleged misconduct to school district authorities.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted as to the City of New York but otherwise denied, and Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment is granted as to Defendant Harper’s liability but otherwise denied.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted as to the City of New York but otherwise denied, and Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment is granted as to Defendant Harper’s liability but otherwise denied.”
“For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion will be treated as one for summary judgment and will be GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion will otherwise be DENIED.”
“Because Plaintiff has offered no evidence that Defendants knew or should have known of Father Kennedy’s alleged propensity to commit sexual abuse, Plaintiffs negligence claims fail as a matter of law, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment must be granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample from search_dockets(assigned_judge='Paul G. Gardephe'). The visible docket is current/2025-2026-heavy and reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload. No terminated dockets on the page, so no filed-minus-terminated durations.