Wendy Beetlestone
How Judge Beetlestone decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At summary judgment in employment cases she parses claim-by-claim and theory-by-theory: she will grant on weaker theories (e.g. retaliation) while letting a narrowed disparate-treatment or single-incident claim reach a jury.
“Summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims ... DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's age discrimination disparate treatment claims.”
On a Title VII hostile-work-environment theory she will let the claim survive a motion to dismiss even in a contested 'reverse-discrimination' posture, separating the surviving hostile-environment theory from the dismissed disparate-treatment theory within the same counts.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to De Piero's allegations of a hostile work environment in Counts One, Two, and Five.”
Procedural preferences
For a private entity sued under Section 1983 she runs all four state-actor tests (nexus, symbiosis, joint-action, public-function) and dismisses with prejudice when none is plausibly met and amendment would be futile.
“Courts use four tests to determine if a party is a 'state actor' for Section 1983 liability. ... Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to satisfy any of these tests.”
Cautions
She distinguishes with-prejudice from without-prejudice dismissals deliberately within a single order (e.g. equal-benefit/1983 theories with prejudice, disparate-treatment without), so read the prejudice line theory-by-theory before repleading.
“it is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
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 = 12 |
Granted: 5Granted in part: 7 | 100% granted |
| Summary judgment N = 12 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 7Denied: 4 | 67% granted |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“Defendant's Motion is GRANTED with respect to: 1. Plaintiff's Discrimination Claims. 2. Plaintiff's Retaliation Claims based on her asthma diagnosis. Defendant's Motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's Retaliation Claims based on her taking a day off from work for her GERD-related Procedure.”
“Summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims pursuant to the ADEA, PHRA, and PFPO. Summary judgment is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's age discrimination disparate treatment claims pursuant to the ADEA, PHRA, and PFPO.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and all claims against Defendant Anthony J. Samango, Jr. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In all other respects, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Counts One, Two, and Five ... are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to their allegations of disparate treatment. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to De Piero's allegations of a hostile work environment in Counts One, Two, and Five. ... Count Two ... 'equal benefit clause', it is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... Count Four ... 42 U.S.C. 1983, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Having failed to meet the threshold 'state actor' requirement, all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants must fail. Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, and the claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendant's Motion is GRANTED and that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One is GRANTED. Count One is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Two is DENIED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Three is GRANTED. Count Three is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Strike ... Defendant's Motion is DENIED.”
“Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 141, 142, 143) ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions are DENIED.”
“Defendant Sway's Motion for Summary Judgment ... is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, which is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... DENIED in all other respects.”
“Defendant PureRED's Motion for Summary Judgment ... is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. ... GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, which is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... DENIED in all other respects.”
“Defendants' Motion is HEREBY GRANTED. Biondino's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract (Count XI), and her claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Count XII), Wage Payment and Collection Law (Count XIII), and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (Count XIV) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE ... The Motion to Dismiss is otherwise DENIED.”
“Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: a. The motions to dismiss Count I are GRANTED ... b. The motions to dismiss Count II are DENIED as to Defendants Resultly and Beyrak and GRANTED as to Defendant VigLink. (Defendant Resultly)”
“Defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: a. The motions to dismiss Count I are GRANTED ... b. The motions to dismiss Count II are DENIED as to Defendants Resultly and Beyrak ... (Defendant Beyrak)”
“b. The motions to dismiss Count II are DENIED as to Defendants Resultly and Beyrak and GRANTED as to Defendant VigLink. Count II is DISMISSED against Defendant VigLink ... h. The motion to dismiss Count XI is DENIED. (Defendant VigLink)”
“(1) the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Count I; (2) ... GRANTED as to Count II; Count II ... is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) ... GRANTED as to Counts III and IV; Counts III and IV ... are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (4) the Plaintiff shall have leave to file an amended complaint.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 246 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 101 days (N = 2).
Enumerated terminated civil dockets filed 2021 (assigned_judge='Wendy Beetlestone'). Mix is employment/civil-rights heavy with consumer-credit (FDCPA), securities, and qui-tam (False Claims Act) matters, plus some criminal. Referral magistrate seen: Pamela A. Carlos.