Edwin Michael Kosik

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania district Deceased · served 1986–2019 Appointed by Ronald Reagan (Republican) 20 signed orders read

Judge Kosik no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Kosik decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

Kosik treated state creation, regulatory authority, funding, and benefit from the work as collectively sufficient to support joint-employer status under the federal wage statute.

“the concept of joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act is an expansive one and is to be applied with consideration given to the broad remedial purposes of the Act.”

Procedural preferences

He treated a request for greater factual detail as a discovery issue when the complaint already gave fair notice of the claim.

“A motion for a more definite statement is not a substitute for the discovery process.”

Cautions

He enforced the summary-judgment filing deadline by striking a cross-motion and its supporting papers as untimely.

“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11), as well as all accompanying documents (Docs. 12-15), will be stricken from the record as untimely filed;”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Tobyhanna Conservation Ass'n v. Country Place Waste Treatment Co.
· 1989-09-20
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“[1] the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, for summary judgment is denied;”

Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“[2] the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied;”

Motion to amend pleadings (plaintiff) Granted

“[3] the plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings is granted;”

Garcia v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
· 1990-02-13
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“Accordingly, we shall adopt the report of the Magistrate and dismiss the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus.”

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Blast Intermediate Unit 17
· 1987-12-22
Motions to dismiss (Commonwealth defendants) Denied

“the motion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Department of Education to dismiss the amended complaint is denied;”

Eisenfelder v. United States
· 1994-12-15
Section 2255 motion (petitioner) Denied

“The petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence is denied;”

Ball v. U.S. Parole Commission
· 1994-03-31
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied;”

United States v. Nardone
· 1990-05-11
Summary judgment (plaintiff United States) Granted

“the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted;”

Motion to strike counterclaim and dismiss third party complaint (plaintiff and third-party defendants) Granted

“the defendant’s counterclaim and third party complaint are dismissed;”

Jeffery v. O'Donnell
· 1987-09-29
Motion to appoint guardians ad litem (defendants) Denied

“defendants’ motions to appoint guardians ad litem for the children plaintiffs are denied;”

Motion to dismiss parties (plaintiffs) Denied

“plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the children as plaintiffs from this action is denied.”

Zaloga v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. of America
· 2009-11-24
Motion to dismiss or strike (defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike (Doc. 4) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum;”

Scalzo v. Insalaco's Markets
· 1998-01-27
Summary judgment (defendant employer) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, we grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Count I.”

Scanlin v. Utica First Insurance
· 2006-04-06
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“the plaintiffs motion to remand to state court (Doc. 2) is DENIED;”

Serino v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
· 2009-11-18
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 11), as well as all accompanying documents (Docs. 12-15), will be stricken from the record as untimely filed;”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 8) will be GRANTED;”

DIRECTV, LLC v. Perugini
· 2014-06-20
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“we will grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment”

Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“we will grant Plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 151.5 days (N = 10).

The twenty enumerated early-2000 cases included six habeas matters, four prisoner civil-rights or prison-condition cases, two personal-liability cases, two student-loan recoveries, two trademark cases, and one each involving motor-vehicle injury, Social Security, contract, and a federal sentence challenge. All twenty were terminated. This narrow historical cohort does not establish Kosik's tenure-wide caseload mix.

A historical record

Judge Kosik 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.