Thomas Ignatius Vanaskie
How Judge Vanaskie rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Vanaskie left this court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Vanaskie
Thomas Ignatius Vanaskie was a judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Vanaskie received a commission on February 11, 1994. Judge Vanaskie left the court on April 28, 2010 on appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
How Judge Vanaskie decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Potoski, Vanaskie found that similarities between old and new positions could let a jury disbelieve the university's reorganization explanation.
“a reasonable jury could find that the ‘reorganization’ defense advanced by Wilkes is ‘unworthy of credence.’”
In the 2005 Labelstock decision, Vanaskie permitted an antitrust claim to proceed where the complaint connected market behavior to identified participants, purpose, and motive.
“Plaintiffs have identified Bemis and MAC-tac as two of several participants in the purported conspiracy, the purpose of the conspiracy, which was to fix prices, and the motive, which was to restrain competition in order to assure market share and profitability.”
Procedural preferences
In Williams Controls, Vanaskie deemed the movant's facts admitted after the opposing party filed its own narrative instead of responding paragraph by paragraph, while still reviewing the full record.
“Williams has violated Local Rule 56.1, which was drafted to create a simple means through which the parties could identify for the court the relevant factual disputes in connection with a summary judgment motion.”
In Penn Forest, Vanaskie required an evidentiary basis for each material zoning finding before a local denial could survive federal review.
“a written decision cannot simply rely upon conclusory statements, but must provide some evidentiary basis to support each statement.”
Cautions
In Malinoski, Vanaskie declined summary judgment where evidence permitted competing inferences about whether an industrial-equipment alteration was foreseeable.
“Foreseeability is generally a question for the fact finder.”
In Bobrick, Vanaskie denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift a discovery stay after finding that they could not present a viable wrongful-use-of-proceedings or abuse-of-process claim.
“Because it is evident that Plaintiffs cannot present a viable claim under the Dragonetti Act or the common law of abuse of process, the motion to lift the stay of discovery will be denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. Entry 46) is DENIED.”
“The PK Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. Entry 69) is GRANTED.”
“The Appraiser Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. Entry 84) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant M & T’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. Entry 98) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended (Dkt. Entry 68) is DENIED.”
“Defendants Luzerne County, the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office, District Attorney David W. Lupas, and Assistant District Attorney Gregory E. Fellermans’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. Entry 17) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs federal law claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Because this Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, Plaintiffs’ state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly GED’s. motion for summary judgment will be denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Hoffman’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.”
“For all of these reasons, Formica’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint will be granted.”
“Because Foster’s decision to deny Omni-point’s application for a special exception was not supported by substantial evidence, Omnipoint’s motion for summary judgment on Count I will be granted and a peremptory judgment of mandamus will be entered against Foster.”
“Moreover, because Omnipoint has failed to allege facts that would support a 1983 action, Foster’s motion for summary judgment on Count II will be granted.”
“Because Penn Forest’s decision to deny Omnipoint’s application was not supported by substantial evidence, Omnipoint’s motion for summary judgment on Count I will be granted and a peremptory judgment of mandamus will be entered against Penn Forest.”
“Moreover, because Omnipoint has failed to allege facts that would support a § 1983 action, Penn Forest’s motion to dismiss Count II will be granted.”
“Because there is no privity between Pár-ente and Williams, Parente’s motion to dismiss Williams’ negligence claim will be granted. Because privity is not required for a negligent misrepresentation claim and material facts are in dispute as to whether Williams justifiably relied upon Parente’s work product, Parente’s motion for summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation claim will be denied. Because a question of fact exists as to whether Williams was an intended beneficiary of the contract between Párente and Sparkomatic, Parente’s motion for summary judgment on the third party beneficiary claim will be denied.”
“Defendants Bemis Company, Inc.’s and Morgan Adhesive Company’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Dkt. Entry 304) is GRANTED as to Bemis, and Plaintiffs’ claim against Bemis is DISMISSED. In all other respects, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. Entry 21), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to Count III, Plaintiffs claim against Defendant in his official capacity for an alleged failure to train; and, 2. Defendant’s motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Dkt. Entry 112) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. Entry 163) is DENIED.”
“The Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay (Dkt. Entry 187) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 393 days (N = 5).
The fixed five-matter sample included one Medicare case, two bankruptcy appeals, one prisoner civil-rights case, and one habeas petition. All five were terminated, but the small early-tenure sample is not a distribution of Vanaskie's full caseload.
A historical record
Judge Vanaskie left this court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.