Cathy Bissoon
How Judge Bissoon rules, drawn from 49 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Bissoon received a commission on October 19, 2011.
Judge Bissoon's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bissoon, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Do not send correspondence to Judge Bissoon without her request or approval.
“Counsel are not to send correspondence to Judge Bissoon, unless she specifically requests or approves the same.”
Motions
Confer before a Rule 12(b) motion about whether amendment can cure the pleading defect.
“the parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of such a motion to determine whether it can be avoided.”
Motions
Attach a good-faith conferral certificate to a motion to dismiss.
“motions to dismiss must be accompanied by a certificate of the movant”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Bissoon decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Axis Insurance Company v. Franitti, Bissoon rejected the insured’s bad-faith theory on summary judgment because Franitti had not shown that the insurer refused payment for a frivolous or unfounded reason.
“a bad faith claim still is 'established upon a showing that the insurer refused to pay the proceeds of [the] policy' because of 'a frivolous or unfounded reason[.]' And Franitti has not made such a showing.”
In Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Bissoon revisited an interlocutory dismissal after controlling law changed, despite the case's long pendency.
“there is no avoiding the fact that the controlling law has shifted and that this change provides a sufficient justification for revisiting an interlocutory order.”
In the Kopy’s Bar litigation, she denied officers’ and a city’s summary judgment motions after reviewing incident video and finding material disputes about the force used and officers’ drinking.
“Numerous videos of the incident have been submitted. The Court has reviewed them all. The suggestion that they support a grant of summary judgment, in favor of the Defendant officers, strains credulity.”
Procedural preferences
In Axis Insurance Co. v. Franitti, Bissoon denied a motion to exclude an expert because the challenge did not dispute his qualifications, reliability, or fit to the case. She held that the objections to his opinions concerned their weight rather than admissibility.
“while Franitti may challenge Leslie's opinions and the basis for them, such challenges properly go to the weight those opinions, not their admissibility.”
Before filing a motion to dismiss, parties must confer about whether amendment can cure the pleading defect and the movant must certify those efforts; an uncertified motion may be summarily denied.
“motions to dismiss must be accompanied by a certificate of the movant, stating that the moving party has made good faith efforts to confer with the nonmovant(s) ... Motions to dismiss that do not contain the required certification will be summarily denied.”
Cautions
In Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Bissoon criticized the prolonged churn in that case, saying it did not appear to benefit either side and invoking Rule 1.
“While that may be great for the lawyers involved here, the Court cannot possibly imagine that the churning of this case has been consistent with the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, or has been, to date, of any particular benefit to the parties on either side.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Axis' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 134) is GRANTED;”
“Franitti's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 132) is GRANTED only as to Axis' fraud claim and DENIED in all other respects;”
“Franitti's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. 133) is DENIED.”
“As Wyoming now recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 523) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 65) is GRANTED. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated January 20, 2015, hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is GRANTED; the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections is DISMISSED, with prejudice, from this lawsuit; and Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his filing an amended complaint, by July 11, 2014.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED (1) only with respect to the claims against Defendants Intromark Incorporated and Technosystems Service Corporation. Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Intromark Incorporated and Technosystems Service Corporation are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and the R&R is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court.”
“the following Order is entered: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ... is GRANTED (1) only with respect to the claims against Defendants Intromark Incorporated and Technosystems Service Corporation; and (2) denied with respect to the motion to strike the class allegations.”
“Defendant Quarture's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29) is GRANTED and that Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Quarture is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint as to that claim.”
“The DOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 38) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims against the DOC Defendants in their official capacities and DENIED in all other respects. Plaintiff's claims against the DOC Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed with prejudice.”
“it hereby is ORDERED that Target's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14) is GRANTED regarding the claim for attorney's fees against it, and otherwise is DENIED;”
“the City's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) is DENIED; and the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 38) is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court.”
“Consistent with the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's renewed Motion for class certification (Doc. 127, as amended in Doc. 129) is DENIED, and Defendants' Motion (Doc. 136) to Strike Plaintiff's expert opinions is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendants' Motion (Doc. 136) to Strike Plaintiff's expert opinions is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief from his convictions is DENIED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED with respect to all guilt-phase claims; Petitioner's request for habeas relief from his sentence of death is GRANTED; The execution of the writ of habeas corpus is STAYED for 120 days from the date of this Order, during which time the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may conduct a new sentencing hearing; and, After 120 days, should the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania not conduct a new sentencing hearing, the writ shall issue and the Commonwealth shall sentence the Petitioner to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Docs. 6 and 18) are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 2020-2022 sample includes civil-rights and employment claims, False Claims Act matters, railroad labor litigation, and criminal cases. Many sampled employment matters ended through mediation or administrative closure, leaving few dispositive-motion timing observations.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, not for Judge Bissoon: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 1,965 | 6.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 665 | 4.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 659 | 5.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 632 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,965 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,871 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,021 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,988 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,891 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,939 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,766 | 6.9 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Bissoon with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bissoon, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bissoon's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace