Dan Aaron Polster
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 = 8 |
Granted: 2Denied: 6 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Compassionate release N = 2 |
Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion to compel arbitration N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Judgment on pleadings N = 1 |
Granted in part: 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 reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson and Johnson's ("J&J's") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #: 1919).”
“In light of the evidence with respect to shipments to Dr. Heim, the Court is unable to conclude that no reasonable jury could find that Schein's market activities were de minimis. ... Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Before the Court is CVS's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #: 1888). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Before the Court is Rite Aid's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #: 1888). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are DENIED with respect to Counts I (RICO § 1962(c)); II (RICO § 1962(d)); III (FDUTPA); IV (Misleading Advertising); VI (Negligence); VII (Wanton Negligence); XI (Nuisance); and XII (Unjust Enrichment). Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED with respect to Counts II (RICO § 1962(a)); V (Breach of Implied Warranty); VIII (Negligence Per Se); IX (Negligent Marketing); and X (Negligent Distribution).”
“The Pharmacy Defendants have not shown Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Accordingly, Pharmacy Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #: 3177) is DENIED.”
“The Court finds that Oliver failed to identify extraordinary and compelling reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to warrant compassionate release and the § 3553(a) factors weigh heavily against Oliver's requested relief. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Oliver's motion for compassionate release.”
“As there are no disputed material facts, see ECF 17, and based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of the Government on all claims.”
“Because there are no genuine disputes of material fact on Counts I and II of Pesta's amended complaint, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants (ECF Doc. 47) and DENIES summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on those claims.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF Doc. 44) and GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Bosch's motion for summary judgement without prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss is GRANTED. This matter is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs may pursue arbitration as required by their employment agreements.”
“Defendant Sedgwick Claims Management's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. ECF Doc. 11. Plaintiff's FMLA interference claim (Count I) against Sedgwick is dismissed with prejudice; plaintiff's aiding and abetting discrimination claim (Count VI) is dismissed without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 130 days (N = 6).
Enumerated from assigned_judge='Dan A. Polster' (filed 2019-2022 window). As a senior judge his direct docket is broad: opioid MDL member 'op' cases (BCBS Louisiana v. Insys, Erie County Med Ctr v. Teva, Hartman v. Sackler, LA County v. CVS), federal criminal (US v. Pena-Vazquez, Bianca, Odubajo, Paige), FLSA (Mills v. Mount Royal Villa), diversity contract (J.M. Smucker v. Carat USA, Davis v. Tech Credit Union), trade secrets (SAP America v. Paragon), employment (Pearson v. EMH ADA; Frasier v. CMHA FMLA; Wilson v. Dollar Tree), §2241 habeas (Brown v. Garza), and US-defendant suits (Garber, Horton, Jackson, Adams). No referred magistrate observed on these rows; random-referral magistrates named at assignment include Jonathan D. Greenberg and Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong.