Joshua David Wolson
How Judge Wolson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He construes arbitration clauses broadly but enforces their outer limit: an 'arising out of / relating to' clause does not sweep in a claim that has no connection to the parties' relationship -- here an identity-theft FCRA claim premised on the absence of any 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.”
Procedural preferences
An unopposed dispositive motion is not granted by default -- he conducts the full merits analysis and requires the movant to actually establish entitlement 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.”
He applies the Guidotti framework to motions to compel arbitration: the Rule 12(b)(6) standard if arbitrability appears on the complaint's face, the Rule 56 standard (after limited discovery) if the agreement comes in as an outside exhibit.
“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
Pennsylvania's judicial privilege bars tort claims (including defamation) premised on statements made in the regular course of prior judicial proceedings -- repackaging a lost case as 'fraud on the court' will not survive a motion to dismiss.
“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.”
On prisoner claims he strictly enforces PLRA exhaustion -- a grievance filed months after the event (and after suit) is too late, barring the federal claims regardless of merit.
“Mr. Clark filed his first grievance related to the tainted food on October 20, 2022, approximately six months after he alleged the incident occurred and one month after he filed his Amended Complaint. That was too late. Because Mr. Clark did not exhaust his administrative remedies, the PLRA bars his constitutional claims.”
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.
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to compel arbitration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to amend N = 1 |
Granted in part: 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.
“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.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Active district judge (took the bench mid-2019). Diverse civil docket: civil-rights employment (Title VII / 1981 / ADA), product liability, copyright (Strike 3 Holdings Doe suits), insurance & ERISA, FDCPA consumer credit, FLSA/unpaid-wages, contract, prisoner civil rights, and IDEA/special-education. Sits in both Philadelphia (2:) and Allentown/Reading (5:) divisions.