Mark W. Pedersen
How Judge Pedersen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a case testing whether out-of-state employees could join an FLSA collective action against an employer with no New York headquarters, Pedersen applied Bristol-Myers Squibb's personal-jurisdiction limits to collective actions rather than treating them like Rule 23 class actions, reasoning that each opt-in plaintiff is an independent party whose claim must itself connect to the forum.
“This Court lacks specific jurisdiction over the FLSA claims of out-of-state plaintiffs who would like to join Kimble's collective action for the following reasons. First, I see no reason to analyze this case as I would a Rule 23 class action.”
On a Social Security appeal, Pedersen declined to remand for the Appeals Council to more fully explain its treatment of new medical evidence where the additional material was a small fraction of the record and did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome, treating that harmlessness finding as dispositive independent of any procedural gap.
“Even if the Appeals Council should have discussed this evidence, any error is harmless because the evidence did not show a reasonable probability of changing the ALJ's decision.”
Most of Pedersen's classified Social Security appeals affirm the Commissioner, but he has reversed and remanded when the record showed a genuine gap -- in one case issuing a judicial subpoena to the claimant's own treating therapist for records neither side had obtained, then remanding once they arrived, rather than affirming on an incomplete record.
“I grant Plaintiff's motion and deny the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
Procedural preferences
On a late motion to amend a complaint filed after the scheduling-order deadline, Pedersen required the movant to address Rule 16(b)'s good-cause and diligence standard, not the more lenient Rule 15(a) standard, and denied the motion where counsel argued only under Rule 15/Rule 6 and where most of the proposed changes did not depend on newly obtained information.
“Where, as here, a scheduling order governs amendments to the complaint... the lenient standard under Rule 15(a)... must be balanced against the requirement under Rule 16(b) that the Court's scheduling order shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause.”
Even on an unopposed stipulated attorney-fee request under the Social Security Act's fee-shifting provision, Pedersen independently checks the delay between a favorable decision and the benefits award, and whether the contingency agreement shows signs of overreaching, before approving the requested percentage.
“counsel obtained a fully favorable outcome without any significant delay... nothing suggests that fraud or overreaching affected the contingency agreement”
Cautions
Faced with a defendant found incompetent to stand trial, Pedersen required the government to make a rigorous evidentiary showing -- including a multi-day hearing with competing psychiatric experts -- before authorizing involuntary medication, and recommended denial where the record did not establish the treatment would likely restore competency without undue risk of harmful side effects.
“the undersigned recommends that the motion be denied”
At a contested detention hearing, Pedersen weighed the specific proffered evidence of dangerousness against the individual defendant's own history and ties to the community, rather than treating the nature of the charges (a January 6 Capitol-riot prosecution) as controlling, and released the defendant on conditions.
“the Court denies the govt's motion for detention, and determines there are conditions which can be set in order to ensure the deft's return to Court and the safety of the community.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court denies without prejudice the request for bifurcation of trial, grants the motion to sever with respect to the claim against Dr. Naz, and otherwise denies without prejudice the motion to sever.”
“insofar as Defendants seek bifurcation of trial under Rule 42, the Court denies that request without prejudice.”
“I summarize my ruling on Kimble's pending motion for corrective action. For the reasons stated here and below, I DENY IN PART and RESERVE IN PART on Kimble's motion for corrective action and equitable tolling.”
“DECISION AND ORDER granting 31 Motion to Change Venue; denying 32 Motion to Strike... The Court sua sponte stays this order for 14 days should Opteon wish to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Thereafter, the Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois.”
“denying 32 Cross MOTION to Strike 14 Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff and in Opposition to 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue.”
“MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying ECF No. 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granting ECF No. 10, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings brought by the Commissioner of Social Security. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.”
“the decision of Defendant Commissioner is Affirmed; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 8) is Denied”
“the decision of Defendant Commissioner is affirmed; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 8) is denied”
“Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 9), is DENIED. The Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 10), is GRANTED. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.”
“Plaintiff now requests $13,059.25 in attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 406(b), in accordance with counsel's twenty-five percent contingency-fee agreement... For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.”
“After considering the information from the hearing and the submissions, and for the reasons stated below, the undersigned issues this Report and Recommendation that the district judge deny the government's motion.”
“The Court grants Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to defendant Joseph C. Buckley pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and for entry of a default judgment... and that the portion of the Complaint by Plaintiff for monetary damages against defendant Joseph C. Buckley is dismissed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 727 as a consequence of the Order of Discharge, dated January 21, 2021, issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Johnson's second motion to amend, (ECF No. 45), without prejudice.”
“The attached order formalizes the Court's grant of ECF No. 65, Plaintiff's motion for the creation of a supplemental needs trust.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Pedersen's enumerated docket includes a large recurring volume of consent-jurisdiction Social Security disability/SSI appeals, a smaller mix of civil matters referred for pretrial management or accepted by consent for final disposition (products liability, prisoner civil rights, employment/wage claims, mortgage foreclosure), and a high volume of routine criminal 'mj' initial-appearance and detention-hearing matters, including cases transferred from other districts.
Put Judge Pedersen's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Pedersen actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Pedersen's own signed orders and cites them.