Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen
How Judge Antwerpen rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Antwerpen no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Antwerpen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Van Antwerpen treated ERISA's access-to-court policy and the place benefits were to be received as important to venue.
“Examining Defendants’ venue claims in light of ERISA’s broad policy favoring free access to federal courts, we find that the Defendants’ alleged breach occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.”
He enforced unambiguous insurance exclusions when the record did not support a contrary reasonable expectation of coverage.
“Regular use of a non-owned automobile was expressly and plainly excluded from the Policy’s UIM coverage.”
Procedural preferences
Van Antwerpen applied Rule 60's reasonable-time requirement strictly when the movant waited nearly two years despite a clear order.
“Twenty-two months is unreasonable under any measure for relief from a judgment where the order was clear on its face and where the law is well known to the defendant, as in this case.”
In a federal civil-rights case with pendent state claims, he applied federal privilege law rather than a state restriction on juvenile records.
“We know of no common law federal privilege against disclosing juvenile records.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is hereby ORDERED that the Order of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED in its entirety, and this Court adopts in full the Opinion of the Bankruptcy Court.”
“we sustained the objection and denied the motion for a mistrial.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the Appellant’s Appeal is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we will remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.”
“The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants The City of Philadelphia,. Mayor of the City of Philadelphia, and City Council filed December 15, 1995 is GRANTED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia filed December 15, 1995 is GRANTED.”
“The Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia filed December 15, 1995 is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“The Petition for Enforcement of the Consent and Agreement of Settlement of the Parties filed by Plaintiffs on September 11, 1995 is DENIED.”
“Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction was denied.”
“defendant’s Petition for Issuance of Writ of Error Coram Nobis Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and Motion Pursuant to Rule 52(b) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Plain Error) filed July 10,1997 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to defendant’s right to refile said motion in proper form in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”
“For the reasons adduced above, we shall, therefore, deny the plaintiffs’ motion to compel.”
“For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion is granted.”
“the defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence is hereby denied.”
“it is hereby ordered that the Defendants’ motion is DENIED.”
The court permitted evidence of a resisting-arrest conviction but deferred objections to videotaped medical testimony until trial.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Assigned cases were located across the district tenure, but the five sampled records contained no electronic entries. This bounded holding does not support claims about career caseload, case duration, motion base rates, or ruling speed.
A historical record
Judge Antwerpen 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.