Patricia A. Hemann

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio magistrate Retired 2008 · served 1993–2008 Appointed by Judges of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio 16 signed orders read

Judge Hemann no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Hemann decides

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

What persuades

Hemann found it inequitable to let an employer conceal a hiring decision and then invoke the filing deadline against the applicant.

“Equity forbids allowing a party to keep its employment decisions secret while demanding that the petitions of aggrieved applicants be filed timely.”

Hemann treated an employee's subjective belief that she could not work as insufficient to overturn the administrative record.

“That subjective ‘evidence’ cannot be sufficient to overturn the findings of the Commissioner.”

Procedural preferences

Hemann required a party seeking more discovery before summary judgment to use the affidavit procedure then provided by Rule 56.

“The court will not hear, therefore, GenCorp’s current assertion that the court’s judgment was premature because GenCorp needed more time for discovery.”

Hemann disregarded an unsupported factual assertion when the cited appendix could not be identified.

“The citation is therefore ignored.”

Signed rulings

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

Hawthorne v. United States
· 2007-09-10
Summary judgment (United States) Granted

“For the above stated reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the United States is granted.”

Gould v. Case Western Reserve University
· 2005-05-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant university) Denied

“the court overrules Case’s motion for dismissal pursuant to R. 12(b)(6).”

XXL of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Broadview Heights
· 2004-10-20
Summary judgment (third-party defendant insurer) Granted

“the court grant Scottsdale’s motion for summary judgment”

Summary judgment (city defendants) Denied

“overrule Broad-view Heights’ motion for summary judgment.”

GenCorp, Inc. v. AIU Insurance
· 2004-01-21
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“the court overrules GenCorp’s motion for reconsideration.”

XXL of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Broadview Heights
· 2004-01-13
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“the magistrate judge recommends that the court grant plaintiffs motion in part and overrule it in part and grant defendants’ motion in part and overrule it in part.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part
GenCorp, Inc. v. AIU Insurance
· 2003-10-15
Motion for joinder (defendant First State) Granted

“The court grants First State’s motion for joinder.”

Summary judgment (defendant insurers) Granted

“the court also grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment and enters judgment for the defendants as a matter of law.”

Buxton v. Apfel
· 1999-12-01

Hemann recommended affirming the administrative denial of disability benefits: "the magistrate judge recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed."

Bob's Beverage, Inc. v. Acme, Inc.
· 1999-01-29
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment in part and overrules the motion in part.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are overruled with the exception of Acme’s and Bares’ motion as to plaintiffs’ claims under Ohio Rev.Code. §§ 1701.88(A) and 1701.97.”

Harris v. Lincoln Electric
· 1998-02-06
Summary judgment (defendant Dennis Shimko) Granted

“Defendant Shimko’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Title VII claims is granted”

Summary judgment (defendant Lincoln Electric) Granted

“Defendant Lincoln’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Title VII claims is granted.”

George v. Associated Stationers
· 1996-06-03
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to liability only is granted and defendants’ motion is overruled.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Denied
United States v. Butler
· 1996-02-09
Motion for pretrial detention (government) Granted

“Accordingly, defendant Burnice J. Butler is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or her designated representative”

Miller v. Chater
· 1995-11-08

Hemann affirmed the administrative denial of retirement benefits: "For the above stated reasons, the decision of the Secretary is affirmed."

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Twenty assigned matters were enumerated. The fixed-seed sample contained five terminated matters spanning benefits, immigration, product-liability, commerce, and employment litigation. Their durations ranged from 115 to 467 days, with a median of 277 days; every sampled entry stream was empty.

A historical record

Judge Hemann no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.