Joshua David Wolson
How Judge Wolson rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wolson
Joshua David Wolson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Wolson received a commission on May 28, 2019.
Judge Wolson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wolson, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Make every filed exhibit text searchable.
“All exhibits must be text searchable.”
Filing
Provide courtesy copies only for sealed filings or motions with more than five exhibits.
“Judge Wolson only requires courtesy copies in two circumstances: (1) for any filings made under seal; and (2) for any motions with more than five exhibits.”
Sealing
File a sealing motion when filing the material sought to be sealed.
“A party that seeks to file material under seal must file a sealing motion when it files the material that it seeks to seal.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
- Standing Order on Procedure for Case Opening ↗
- Standing Order on Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Access and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order on Filing Procedures in Alien Detainee Cases ↗
- Second Amended Standing Order on Guilty Pleas and Sentencing ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Document Submission for Unrepresented Litigants ↗
- Standing Procedural Order for Cases Seeking Social Security Review ↗
- Superseding Standing Order on Procedural Matters in Pro Se Civil and Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order on Electronic Access to Civil and Criminal Transcripts ↗
How Judge Wolson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Holloway, Wolson denied a motion to compel arbitration of identity-theft claims under a credit-card agreement. He held that the claims about allegedly fraudulent loans had no connection to the parties’ card-account relationship.
“I cannot find that Mr. Holloway's claim 'aris[es] out of or relat[es] to' the Parties' relationship ... There is no connection of any sort between Mr. Holloway's claims in this case and his relationship with Citibank.”
In one arbitration dispute, later contract versions could not bind the plaintiffs without proof they received notice and agreed to the provision.
“Without evidence of notice and assent, those later versions cannot bind the Sokics.”
Procedural preferences
In Clark v. Wombold, Wolson analyzed an unopposed summary-judgment motion on its merits because a failure to respond did not automatically entitle the movant to judgment.
“a moving party is not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of right just because the adverse party does not respond ... the court must conduct a full analysis to determine whether the moving party has shown itself to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
In Holloway, Wolson reviewed the motion to compel arbitration under the summary-judgment standard because the complaint did not reference the agreements and the bank supplied them through a declaration.
“Mr. Holloway's Complaint does not reference the Arbitration Agreements, and Citibank has placed them before the Court as an exhibit to a declaration. Therefore, I consider the Motion under the summary judgment standard.”
Cautions
In Foster v. Slomsky, Wolson dismissed tort claims arising from statements made in an earlier federal case. He held that Pennsylvania’s judicial privilege covered communications made in the regular course of those proceedings and pertinent to the relief sought.
“The judicial privilege provides absolute immunity for communications which are issued in the regular course of judicial proceedings and which are pertinent and material to the redress or relief sought.”
In Clark v. Wombold, Wolson held that the prisoner had not exhausted his administrative remedies before suing: his first grievance about the alleged tainted food came roughly six months after the incident and after his amended complaint. He granted summary judgment on the federal claims on that ground and because the record lacked evidence supporting them.
“That was too late. Because Mr. Clark did not exhaust his administrative remedies, the PLRA bars his constitutional claims”
In a failure-to-prosecute dismissal, Wolson weighed repeated nonparticipation and an ignored show-cause order under the Poulis factors; he found that a subjective bad-faith finding was unnecessary.
“I have no basis to conclude that Ms. Bridgeford acted in subjective bad faith, but I need not make such a finding.”
In an employment summary judgment dispute, the court treated a claim the plaintiff did not substantively defend in opposition as abandoned. An opposition should respond to each challenged claim rather than leave a count unanswered.
“Dr. Han has abandoned his age discrimination claims, and Temple is entitled to summary judgment on Counts V and X as a result.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“because nothing that Mr. Foster could put in an amended pleading would cure the problems with his claims, the Court will dismiss his claims with prejudice.”
“I therefore conclude that the claims in this case are outside the scope of the arbitration clauses, regardless of what law applies. I will therefore deny Citibank's Motion to compel arbitration.”
“it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Jacovetti's claims for defamation and unjust enrichment are futile. The Court has doubts about the viability of the RICO claims, but it cannot say with certainty that the claims are futile ... Therefore, Jacovetti may file an Amended Complaint, consistent with this decision, within seven days of the date of this Order.”
“Those facts establish that the PLRA and PSTCA bar Mr. Clark’s claims and that Mr. Clark cannot establish the factual basis for his claims. The Court will therefore grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.”
“Selective is entitled to a default judgment against Defendants”
“I will therefore transfer this case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania”
“I will remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County”
“the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART AS MOOT”
“the Motion is GRANTED”
“Motion For Leave To File A Reply Memorandum (ECF No. 49) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Mr. Brock’s Petition To Stay (ECF No. 52) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Wolson's civil docket includes employment and civil-rights claims, product liability, copyright, insurance and benefits disputes, consumer-credit and wage cases, contract actions, prisoner litigation, and special-education matters in the Philadelphia and Allentown divisions.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 338 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 338 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Wolson: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,952 | 3.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,834 | 4.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 898 | 10 months |
| Closed during trial | 46 | 17.8 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,730 | 5.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,200 | 4.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,595 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 5,221 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 5,245 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 4,686 | 5.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,374 | 6 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Wolson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wolson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wolson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace