Michael W. Mosman
How Judge Mosman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In employment-discrimination cases he denies an employer's summary judgment where the plaintiff shows pretext through the employer's shifting, post-litigation explanations and close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action.
“Metro West's motion for summary judgment (#33) is DENIED.”
Procedural preferences
When no party objects to a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, he adopts it as his own opinion in a brief order rather than re-analyzing the merits.
“On February 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [21], recommending Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] should be DISMISSED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed. ... Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [21] as my own opinion.”
He does not rubber-stamp recommendations: he will adopt an F&R only in part, order supplemental briefing, and reach grounds the magistrate did not, even when he arrives at the same ultimate result.
“Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's analysis and his recommendation as to all claims except for the interference and retaliation claims. I therefore ADOPT IN PART the F&R [44]. However, I GRANT defendant summary judgment on all claims, including the interference and retaliation claims, for the reasons explained above and at oral argument.”
Cautions
A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend that merely rehashes arguments already considered will be denied; he treats reconsideration as no vehicle to relitigate points the court has resolved.
“For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [ECF 76] is DENIED.”
He is sparing with sanctions and skeptical of aggressive sanctions practice: he denied a Rule 11 motion aimed at a non-frivolous summary-judgment motion and pointedly noted the sanctions motion itself was the borderline-frivolous filing.
“Here, defendant's motion for summary judgment is not frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual support. ... Ironically, the motion that is borderline frivolous is plaintiff's motion for sanctions. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is therefore denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Ditech's Motion for Summary Judgment [20] is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint [28] is DENIED.”
“Metro West's motion for summary judgment (#33) is DENIED.”
“The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [15] is DENIED.”
“I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF 185] as my own opinion, and I GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF 158]. I dismiss Plaintiffs' Article I, Section 20 claim with prejudice and Plaintiffs' claim for class damages without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss their claims in this action pursuant to pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) [ECF No. 34] is hereby GRANTED, and all claims in Plaintiff's August 15, 2016 Complaint [ECF No.1], and any and all causes of action contained therein, are dismissed without prejudice.”
“Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendations, I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF 34] as my own opinion, and I GRANT the government's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 25].”
“Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's analysis and his recommendation as to all claims except for the interference and retaliation claims. I therefore ADOPT IN PART the F&R [44]. However, I GRANT defendant summary judgment on all claims, including the interference and retaliation claims, for the reasons explained above and at oral argument.”
“Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R (#62) as my own opinion.”
“Based on the foregoing, I GRANT Multnomah County's Motion for Summary Judgment (#92).”
“Lastly, I deny defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to renew. It is premature to discuss the applicability of either the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the Eleventh Amendment without first ascertaining the scope and nature of plaintiff's claims.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#190), Copyright Infringement, is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#233), Trade Secret Misappropriation, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss (#257) is GRANTED.”
“On February 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [21], recommending Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] should be DISMISSED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed. ... Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [21] as my own opinion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 2018-2020 case sample is weighted toward federal post-conviction petitions and criminal matters, with additional employment civil-rights, foreclosure, personal-injury, and employee-benefit trust cases. Reported durations measure the life of each case, not the time taken to decide a motion.
Put Judge Mosman's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Mosman actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Mosman's own signed orders and cites them.