Karen L. Litkovitz

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio magistrate 17 signed orders read

How Judge Litkovitz decides

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

What persuades

On a fully-integrated contract, recommends dismissing a breach-of-contract claim resting on representations outside the agreement while allowing accompanying fraud and unjust-enrichment counts to proceed.

“Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count II of the Counterclaims is DISMISSED.”

On consumer-protection (FCRA) claims, recommends denying defense dismissal motions where the complaint adequately states a claim.

“Defendant EWS's motion for partial dismissal/motion for more definite statement (Doc. 7) is DENIED”

Procedural preferences

Recommends dismissal on 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) screening where a pro se complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim.

“The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B);”

Cautions

Recommends denying untimely Rule 60 relief-from-judgment motions — for example, one filed 6.5 years after dismissal.

“Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration/relief from judgment (Doc. 43) is DENIED;”

Signed rulings

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

Hiles v. Army Review Board Agency
· 2016-02-12
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motion for summary judgment and renewed motion to dismiss Count II (Doc. 97) is GRANTED;”

Recusal (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's motion for recusal (Doc. 99) is DENIED;”

Soumano v. Equifax Credit Info Ser., Inc.
· 2016-08-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant EWS's motion for partial dismissal/motion for more definite statement (Doc. 7) is DENIED”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Equifax's motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is DENIED.”

Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security
· 2018-11-21
Attorney fees (joint) Moot / procedural

“the parties' joint stipulation for an award of attorney fees and expenses (Doc. 15) is GRANTED and Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney fees and costs in the amount of $6,900.00.”

Despot v. American Income Life Insurance Company
· 2019-08-27
Relief from judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration/relief from judgment (Doc. 43) is DENIED;”

Bush Truck Leasing, Inc. v. All Ways Auto Transport, LLC
· 2021-09-01
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count II of the Counterclaims is DISMISSED.”

Bronson v. State of Ohio
· 2022-09-01
Involuntary dismissal (court) Granted

“Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of prosecution.”

Cunningham v. Beasley
· 2024-12-18
Screening dismissal (court) Granted

“The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B);”

Franklin v. Children's Hospital
· 2025-03-10

Sua sponte in forma pauperis screening of a pro se civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of all claims with prejudice as frivolous and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Grounding: "All claims contained in plaintiff's complaint should be DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)". No adversary motion; excluded from decision statistics.

Graham v. Felty
· 2025-12-29

Prisoner-complaint screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and that the plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief be denied as moot. Grounding: "Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Sua sponte screening; excluded from decision statistics.

American Express National Bank v. Alili
· 2025-01-07
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff American Express National Bank's motion to remand this matter to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (Doc. 15) be GRANTED, and this matter be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas in Butler County, Ohio.”

Wanda H. v. Commissioner of Social Security
· 2025-01-09
Social security appeal (claimant) Granted in part

“plaintiff's Statement of Errors (Doc. 8) is SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART and the Commissioner's non-disability finding is REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS consistent with this Order.”

Paul D. J. v. Commissioner of Social Security
· 2025-02-28
Social security appeal (claimant) Granted

“the parties' joint motion to remand (Doc. 15) is GRANTED; this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled directly assigned docket is dominated by Social Security disability appeals decided with the parties' consent and criminal-duty search- and tracking-device-warrant matters. Social Security appeals proceed on the administrative record from the claimant's statement of errors through opposition, reply, and a final order affirming or reversing the Commissioner. The sample is illustrative rather than random.

Put Judge Litkovitz's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Litkovitz actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Litkovitz's own signed orders and cites them.