A. Richard Caputo
Judge Caputo no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Caputo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Caputo was willing to defer contract interpretation until summary judgment when specialized terms left a plausible ambiguity that discovery could illuminate.
“Courts are better positioned to tease out ambiguities on summary judgment.”
Procedural preferences
He treated an unaddressed summary-judgment argument as waived rather than developing the party's response for it.
“It is well-established that a party’s failure to argue an issue on summary judgment constitutes a-waiver of that issue.”
Cautions
He resisted contract interpretations that would let an insurer bypass a statutory judicial safeguard through unilateral policy language.
“To predict otherwise would allow insurers to circumvent the ‘good cause’ requirement prescribed by the legislature.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the above stated reasons, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss will be denied.”
“For the above stated reasons, the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court will be affirmed.”
“The Paiges' motion will thus be denied.”
“For the above stated reasons, Dring's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.”
“Based on the above, the government’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Comparative Proportionality Evidence (Doc. 918) will be granted.”
“For the above stated reasons, Jackson and PPM’s motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the above stated reasons, the Carbon County Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part and Defendant Ayres’s motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part as moot.”
“For the above stated reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs private nuisance claim and will be GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs negligence claim. Plaintiffs request for a permanent injunction will be DENIED as moot.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the County’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint or in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings will be denied.”
“Because Plaintiff failed to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists to support the claim that Defendants acted wantonly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted.”
“For the above stated reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment will be denied with respect to his FDCPA *467claim and granted with respect to his TCPA claim.”
“For the above stated reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.”
“Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 282 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 142 days (N = 8).
The twenty enumerated 1997 cases included three habeas matters, three motor-vehicle injury cases, two prisoner civil-rights cases, two insurance cases, two contract cases, and one each involving employment civil rights, railroad injury, other civil rights, employee benefits, securities, fraud, and property damage. All twenty were terminated. This narrow early-tenure cohort does not establish Caputo's tenure-wide caseload mix.
A historical record
Judge Caputo 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.