Valerie E. Caproni
How Judge Caproni decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
She liberally grants leave to amend, especially for pro se litigants, where an amended pleading could plausibly state a claim -- even denying a defendant's post-trial motion to dismiss in order to give the plaintiff (newly represented by pro bono counsel) a chance to replead Monell claims after he prevailed on his individual Section 1983 claim. A litigant whose claim is thin but salvageable will usually get one more chance to plead it.
“When a party requests leave to amend, however, permission is freely given when justice so requires. ... Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff, who is now represented by able pro bono counsel, leave to amend his complaint against the Monell Defendants.”
Procedural preferences
She holds parties to the pleading rules with precision: ambiguous or selective denials that fail to specify which allegations are admitted and which are denied do not satisfy Rule 8, and she will deem the unanswered allegations admitted -- even for a pro se defendant. A party answering a complaint should deny specifically and completely or risk admission.
“These ambiguous denials do not comply with the minimum requirements under Rule 8, even accounting for Penn’s pro se status, because Penn denied knowledge adequate to form a belief only as to some of the SEC’s allegations.”
Cautions
On a fact-laden contract dispute she will not award full summary judgment to either side where genuine issues of material fact remain (here, the scope of authority to approve 'over and above' work and the disputed value of converted parts): she split the plaintiff's motion (granted in part, denied in part) and denied the defendant's cross-motion outright. Cross-movants on a he-said/she-said contract record should expect a partial, not a clean, resolution.
“For the following reasons, TAP’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and IAG’s motion is DENIED.”
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 = 4 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 2 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to amend N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to alter or amend judgment 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.
“For the following reasons, UBS’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Fixing Members’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the following reasons, UBS’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Fixing Members’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Federated moves for summary judgment on both claims. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 76. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is GRANTED in its entirety.”
“the Court converts the SEC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment and GRANTS that motion in its entirety.”
“The Court further DISMISSES Penn’s counterclaims without prejudice.”
“For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED.”
“For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.”
“For the following reasons, TAP’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and IAG’s motion is DENIED.”
“For the following reasons, TAP’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and IAG’s motion is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample from search_dockets(assigned_judge='Valerie Elaine Caproni'). The visible docket is entirely 2026 newly-filed and pending; reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload. No terminated dockets on the page, so no filed-minus-terminated durations.