Christopher Allan Boyko

How Judge Boyko rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Position
district
Status
Senior status
Appointed by
George W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
2005-01-03
Education
Mount Union College, B.A. (1976); Cleveland State University College of Law, J.D. (1979); University of Nevada, M.J.S. (Master of Judicial Studies, 2010)
Signed orders read
39

How Judge Boyko decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

The judge enforced Ohio's affidavit-of-merit rule in a federal medical-malpractice case, but allowed a short cure period where the plaintiff had reasonably relied on contrary authority. A concrete explanation for the omission supported good cause; silence would have led to dismissal without prejudice.

“Here, the Court finds Plaintiff reasonably relied on the Thompson case and therefore, has shown good cause sufficient to grant his request for a thirty day extension.”

When discovery arrived late but caused little prejudice after the schedule was extended, the judge rejected dismissal and left room for fees or costs instead. The reviewed order shows that proportional, lesser sanctions can be more persuasive than seeking immediate case-ending relief.

“the Court holds that the ‘harsh’ sanction of dismissal is not warranted under these circumstances and that less severe sanctions are more appropriate.”

Procedural preferences

On a motion to dismiss, the judge confines the analysis to the complaint and will not treat new factual assertions in an opposition brief as amendments. Parties should put every necessary factual allegation into the pleading itself.

“The Court must restrict itself to the ‘four corners’ of Plaintiffs’ pleading; and thus, has not considered these assertions in the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) analysis.”

The judge looks to a motion's substance rather than its caption. A filing labeled as summary judgment was treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings because it challenged only the complaint's sufficiency and identified no factual dispute.

“Defendant captions its Motion as a Motion for Summary Judgment but the Motion relies entirely upon the alleged insufficiencies in Plaintiff’s Complaint and does not assert there are no genuine issues of fact. Therefore, the Court deems the Motion as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Federal Rule of Civ. P. 12(c).”

Cautions

At summary judgment, an unsworn expert report is not enough by itself. Once admissibility is challenged, the proponent must explain how the opinions will be presented in an admissible form at trial.

“Plaintiffs offer no explanation on how the expert’s report conclusions will be offered at trial and thus have not met their burden on summary judgment.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Luster v. AWP, Inc. (d/b/a Area Wide Protective)
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For these reasons, the Motion (ECF DKT #107) of Defendant AWP, Inc., d/b/a Area Wide Protective to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is granted.”

Hayden v. 2K Games, Inc. (Take-Two Interactive Software)
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The Court grants Take-Two's Motion to Dismiss Hayden's Unjust Enrichment claim because it is preempted by the Copyright Act. The Court also grants Take-Two's Motion to Dismiss Hayden's claim for Declaratory Judgment due to the absence of an actual 'case or controversy' ... Finally, the Court denies Take-Two's Motion to Dismiss Hayden's request for statutory damages and attorney's fees with respect to Hayden's Registered Tattoos depicted in NBA 2K17 and NBA 2K18.”

Fonseca v. United States
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“This matter is before the Court on Defendant United States of America's Motion to Dismiss (ECF # 10). For the following reasons, the Court grants, in part, Defendant's Motion.”

Metals, Inc. v. Central Transport, Inc.
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“for the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This dismissal is without prejudice subject to refiling a complaint asserting a recognizable cause of action supported with sufficient facts.”

Malee v. Anthony & Frank DiTomaso, Inc.
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Because there are genuine issues of fact whether certain deductions were improper -i.e.- cleaning fees, the Court finds summary judgment is improper. Therefore, for the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.”

Ohio Properties, LLC v. City of Cleveland
1:16-cv-02120 · 2018-03-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Fonseca v. United States of America
1:15-cv-00159 · 2015-10-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Therefore, the Complaint is barred and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted for failure to state a claim and/or for untimeliness.”

Carter v. Prime Health Inc.
1:18-cv-01337 · 2018-08-10
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF DKT #5) to Remand to State Court is granted and the above-captioned case is returned to Lake County Common Pleas Court.”

Carter v. McNaughton
1:15-cv-00037 · 2018-04-04
Daubert motion (defendant) Granted

“For these reasons, the Motion (ECF DKT #83) of Defendants, Marc J. McNaughton, M.D. and Prime Health, Inc., in Limine to Preclude Testimony or Argument based on Testimony of Dr. Lawrence Mendel is granted. The opinions and testimony of Dr. Mendel are, therefore, excluded.”

Z.H. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
1:14-cv-00176 · 2017-01-05
Daubert motion (defendant) Granted in part

“This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Testimony from Plaintiffs’ Designated Expert Witness Cheryl Blume, Ph.D. (ECF # 89). For the following reasons, the Court grants, in part, and denies, in part, Defendants’ Motion.”

In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation
1:08-wp-65000 · 2014-10-03
Daubert motion Granted in part

“Whirlpool’s motion to exclude the testimony of Todd B. Hilsee (docket no. 294) is GRANTED; ... Plaintiffs’ motion to limit and exclude the testimony of Dr. Timothy Bresnahan (docket nos. 295, 296) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; ... Whirlpool’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. David Griffin (docket no. 291) is DENIED;”

Tschappatt v. Crescent Metal Products, Inc.
1:17-cv-00337 · 2018-06-12
Motion in limine (defendant) Denied

“Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 191.5 days (N = 6).

  • The sampled 2021-2026 docket includes post-conviction and immigration habeas matters, Social Security appeals, federal criminal cases, disability-access claims, trade-secret and consumer-reporting disputes, employee-benefit cases, False Claims Act litigation, and subpoena proceedings.
  • Several magistrate judges appear in sampled referrals.
  • The sample is not a complete description of Judge Boyko's active senior-status docket.

Draft for Judge Boyko with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Boyko, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Boyko's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace