Joel H. Slomsky
How Judge Slomsky decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On contested dispositive motions he does not rule on the papers alone: in Glover he set and held a motion hearing on the MTD and then ordered supplemental briefing before deciding, a multi-step vetting of a close 12(b)(6) question.
“ORDER THAT A HEARING ON THE MOTION WILL BE HELD ON JULY 6, 2023 ... SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ... [later] ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS BY AUGUST 3, 2023.”
He issues a short, standalone one-page Order paired with a same-day companion Memorandum/Opinion ('in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day'), keeping the operative ruling crisp and separately citable from the reasoning.
“in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED.”
Cautions
When a plaintiff has already amended once and the amended complaint still fails, he will dismiss WITH prejudice and close the case rather than grant another round of repleading.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED. The Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9) is DISMISSED with prejudice. ... The Clerk of Court shall close this case for statistical purposes.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 12 |
Granted: 4Granted in part: 4Denied: 4 | 67% granted |
| Motions to dismiss N = 10 |
Granted: 7Denied: 3 | 70% granted |
| Motion for jury trial N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to transfer venue N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“it is ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED. Defendant shall file an Answer to the Complaint by August 28, 2024.”
“it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 48) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 44) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Summary judgment is DENIED on Count I of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 34). 2. Summary judgment is GRANTED on Count III of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 34).”
“1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED. 2. The Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 9) is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“3. Plaintiff's Motion for a Jury Trial (Doc. No. 39) is DENIED as moot. ... Since the Amended Complaint is being dismissed, a jury trial will not occur. Therefore, the Motion for a Jury Trial (Doc. No. 39) will be denied as moot.”
“1. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. Nos. 2, 7) are GRANTED. 2. The Clerk of Court shall close this case for statistical purposes.”
“1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 98) is DENIED.”
“2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 99) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's hostile work environment and disparate pay claims ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's gender discrimination claim under Title VII ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's [PHRA] claims ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim under Title VII ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's disability discrimination and retaliation claims brought under the [ADA].”
“1. Defendant Mary Walk's Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED.”
“2. Defendants Borough of Ridley Park and Richard Tutak's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED.”
“3. Defendants Michelle Portnoff and Robert P. Daday's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 15) is GRANTED.”
“4. Defendant Barry C. Dozor's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED. 5. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.”
“1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED.”
“2. Defendants' Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED. 3. The above-captioned matter shall be TRANSFERRED to the District Court of Puerto Rico.”
“1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED ... Because his Complaint is being dismissed for failure to state a claim, and any attempt to amend the Complaint would be futile”
“Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 40, 42) are GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims in the Amended Complaint are DISMISSED. (Doc. No. 40)”
“Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 40, 42) are GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims in the Amended Complaint are DISMISSED. (Doc. No. 42)”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's age discrimination claim under the [ADEA] and [PHRA] ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the ADEA and PHRA ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's disability discrimination claims under the [ADA] and PHRA ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's ADA and PHRA failure to accommodate claim ... DENIED as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim under the ADA and PHRA”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 165 days (N = 2).
Qualitative, NOT a census. His filed-2021/2023 active enumeration is a civil mix -- FCRA consumer-credit (Vickers/Benjamin v. Trans Union), insurance/contract (Mann v. State Farm, Livingstone v. U-Haul), civil rights / Section 1983 (Elansari, Glover, Allah Bey), habeas / 2255 (McDaniel v. Sorber, Washington v. United States), FTCA medical malpractice (Sklarz v. United States/Crescenz VA) -- plus criminal matters (United States v. Council, United States v. Montague). As a senior judge he also still carries decades-old reassigned dockets. Referral magistrates seen on his cases: Scott W. Reid and Carol Sandra Moore Wells. Case duration (docket dates): Glover v. CHOP filed 2023-02-06 -> terminated 2025-09-26 (~963 days; MTD denied, MSJ denied, then dismissed with prejudice under L.R. 41.1(b)).