Amy M. Baggio
How Judge Baggio decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Enforces the demanding preliminary-injunction standard: a PI is an extraordinary remedy and she denies it where the plaintiff seeks to enjoin conduct already in effect (no likely irreparable harm) or raises no serious questions on the merits.
“A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.’”
Cautions
On review of a magistrate judge's F&R she will not re-hear arguments already considered and rejected below; objections that merely relitigate are unpersuasive.
“Objections to a magistrate judge's F&R 'are not a vehicle to relitigate the same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.'”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF 9) and dismisses Plaintiff's ORS 659A.030 failure-to-accommodate claim with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF 3) is DENIED.”
“Defendant New Jersey Judiciary's Motion to Dismiss [25] is GRANTED, Oregon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [29] is GRANTED, Defendant Zweizig's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's federal claims [30] is GRANTED ... Defendant Gloucester County's Motion to Dismiss [49] is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default [36] is DENIED”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend [63] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Hotbox Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [44] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 3) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF 1-1) is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF 53, is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's claims related to the 2020 Email and violations of Items 105 and 303. Defendants' Motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“Because Plaintiff's ORS 659A.030 discrimination claim is time-barred, it is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendant Teeny Foods Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment [27] is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [22] is GRANTED, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [24] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 48) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Robert F. Held [120] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiff's motion to remand to Multnomah County Circuit Court (ECF 7) is GRANTED and his motion for attorney fees (ECF 7) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Reflects assignment mix rather than measured outcomes. Baggio took the federal bench in August 2024, so her docket is a blend of her own newly filed 2026 cases (still pending) and older matters reassigned to her from predecessor judges that she carried to judgment in 2024-2025, including a Section 1983 prisoner civil-rights case she tried to a jury in November 2024 and a state habeas petition she denied. Case durations are not reported because the terminated cases were filed years before her commission and span predecessor judges, so a filing-to-termination span would not reflect her own time on the case.
Put Judge Baggio's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Baggio actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Baggio's own signed orders and cites them.