Keli Marie Neary

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania district Appointed by Joe Biden (Democratic) 13 signed orders read

How Judge Neary decides

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

What persuades

At summary judgment, she expects the nonmovant to identify admissible evidence on every essential element rather than rely on a conclusory expert opinion.

“With no proper evidence on causation to present to the jury summary judgment is appropriate.”

She treats removal jurisdiction narrowly when a state-law claim merely refers to federal law without requiring resolution of a substantial federal issue.

“The mere reliance on a federal statute, however, does not mean that this state law claim arises under federal law.”

Procedural preferences

She enforces the requirement that additional summary-judgment facts correlate with the movant's numbered statement.

“The court, therefore, disregards these non-compliant additional paragraphs.”

She generally defers context-sensitive Rule 403 determinations until the trial record is developed.

“it is rarely appropriate to make a Rule 403 ruling prior to trial”

Cautions

A qualified-immunity argument must apply the correct burden rather than require the plaintiff to disprove the defense.

“it is not Carr's burden to show that qualified immunity does not apply.”

Signed rulings

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

Wiegand v. Department of the Army
1:17-cv-00979-KMN · 2025-08-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“defendant's motion (Doc. 15) to dismiss is GRANTED and the petition for review that was transferred to this court from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit at original docket number 1:23-CV-1653 is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

Sterner v. MCP Holdings Corporation
1:25-cv-01212-KMN · 2026-06-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“MCP's motion (Doc. 43) to dismiss the case is DENIED.”

Vakili v. MTD Products Inc.
1:23-cv-00104-KMN · 2025-11-10
Motion in limine (defendant) Granted

“The court will grant MTD's motion in limine to the extent it wishes to preclude Krafchick from offering testimony on causation.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Therefore, the court will grant MTD's motion for summary judgment.”

Barrett v. Rickard
1:24-cv-01780-KMN-LT · 2025-02-21
Motion for voluntary dismissal (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal of all claims against defendant Beth Rickard (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.”

Motion for discovery (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct discovery to facilitate service of process on the John Doe defendants (Doc. 6) is DENIED as moot.”

Balint v. loanDepot.com, LLC
3:23-cv-01190-KMN · 2025-08-14
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Because loanDepot's claim is time barred by the plain terms of the contract and because Balint concurred in Allstate's motion, Allstate's motions for summary judgment will be granted”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted
Summary judgment (intervenor) Denied

“Allstate's motions for summary judgment will be granted and loanDepot's motion will be denied.”

Cyr v. Schuylkill County
3:22-cv-00453-KMN · 2025-09-30
Summary judgment (medical defendants) Granted

“Thus, defendants' motions for summary judgment shall be granted.”

Summary judgment (county defendants) Granted
Motion in limine (medical defendants) Moot / procedural

“Because the court is granting the Medical Defendants' summary judgment motion, their motion in limine will be denied as moot.”

Clark v. Geisinger Health System
4:23-cv-00871-KMN · 2025-07-03
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“As to Ms. Clark's claim to interference of her FMLA rights, Defendants' motion for summary judgement (Doc. 25) is denied as to Geisinger. As to the individuals named in the complaint, the FMLA retaliation claims, and the ADA and PHRA claims, summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants.”

Eisenacher v. Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
1:24-cv-01707-KMN · 2025-02-14
Motions to dismiss (California defendants) Granted

“The court will grant defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.”

Motions to dismiss (Pennsylvania defendants) Granted
Carr v. Cuffaro
3:24-cv-01633-KMN-LT · 2026-01-05
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Denied

“The motion to dismiss, motion for entry of default, and motion to strike are denied.”

Motion for entry of default (plaintiff) Denied
Motions to strike (defendants) Denied
Flory v. Pennsylvania State University
1:25-cv-01140-KMN · 2025-11-17
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“The court will grant Flory's motion (Doc. 10) and remand this action to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County.”

Harrell v. Mayer
3:22-cv-00730-KMN-LT · 2025-07-16
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied”

Summary judgment (defendant Kothe) Granted

“defendant Kothe's motion for summary judgment is granted”

Summary judgment (defendants Mayer and Kimmick) Granted in part

“defendant Mayer and Kimmick's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part”

Harrell v. Mayer
3:22-cv-00730-KMN-LT · 2026-04-06
Motion in limine (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motions in limine to preclude evidence that he trained as a UFC fighter ... are granted.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motions in limine to preclude ... several hearsay statements ... are granted.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Granted in part

“granted to the extent it seeks to preclude plaintiff from testifying that the force used by defendant was "excessive," but denied without prejudice to the extent it seeks to preclude plaintiff from testifying about causation.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motion seeking to deem admissible video and photo evidence of the incident is granted subject to defendant introducing sufficient testimony to authenticate the evidence during trial.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motions in limine to preclude ... evidence regarding settlement negotiations ... are granted.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motions in limine to preclude ... evidence regarding possible indemnity by Dauphin County or its insurer ... are granted.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motions in limine to preclude ... evidence of other cases filed against Dauphin County are granted.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's motions in limine seeking to bar plaintiff from recovering punitive damages ... are denied without prejudice.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's motions in limine seeking to ... bar plaintiff from introducing evidence relevant to dismissed claims ... are denied without prejudice.”

Motion in limine (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's motions in limine seeking to ... admit evidence of plaintiff's felony conviction are denied without prejudice.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median motion-to-ruling time: 9.5 days (N = 4).

The oldest assigned cohort mixes employment, civil-rights, habeas, personal-injury, and commercial matters, but most were inherited and should not be read as a filing-era caseload profile for Judge Neary.

Put Judge Neary's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Neary actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Neary's own signed orders and cites them.