Cathy Bissoon

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania district Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 26 signed orders read

How Judge Bissoon decides

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

What persuades

On an insurance bad-faith claim she requires clear-and-convincing evidence that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis; a documented, considered claim file plus the absence of any 'frivolous or unfounded reason' defeats the claim, and litigation conduct alone does not establish bad faith.

“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.”

Reconsideration of an interlocutory order is available only on the three traditional Rule 59(e) grounds; an intervening change in controlling law is a sufficient basis, and she applies it even when it delays a long-pending case.

“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.”

Procedural preferences

On a Daubert motion she treats challenges to a qualified expert's opinions as going to weight, not admissibility -- she will not exclude where qualifications, reliability, and fit are not genuinely in issue.

“while Franitti may challenge Leslie's opinions and the basis for them, such challenges properly go to the weight those opinions, not their admissibility.”

Cautions

She is openly impatient with case-churn and gamesmanship: invokes Rule 1, criticizes litigation that benefits 'the lawyers' more than the parties, and orders meet-and-confers; she dismissed a statute-of-limitations argument as 'absurd' with 'illogical contortions.'

“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 Insurance Company v. Franitti
· 2022-09-28
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Axis' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 134) is GRANTED;”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Franitti's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 132) is GRANTED only as to Axis' fraud claim and DENIED in all other respects;”

Motion to exclude expert (defendant) Denied

“Franitti's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. 133) is DENIED.”

Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc.
· 2018-03-07
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Granted

“As Wyoming now recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 523) is GRANTED.”

Shepler v. Elbel
· 2015-02-09
Summary judgment (defendant) 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.”

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Scott Medical Health Center, P.C.
2:16-cv-00225 · 2016-11-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is DENIED.”

Dutrieuille v. Bureau of Corrections
2:13-cv-00505 · 2014-06-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Austin v. Invention Submission Corporation d/b/a InventHelp
2:19-cv-01396 · 2020-05-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Motion to strike class allegations (defendant) Denied

“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.”

Enoxh v. Hice
2:22-cv-00819 · 2023-09-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Reed v. Target Corporation
2:23-cv-00896 · 2024-01-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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;”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) 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.”

Comfort v. PRC Acquisition, LLC d/b/a The Club Sport & Health
2:12-cv-01780 · 2013-04-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Consistent with the foregoing, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is DENIED.”

Asbury v. EQT Corporation
2:18-cv-01005 · 2023-06-26
Class certification (plaintiff) 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.”

Motion to strike expert (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendants' Motion (Doc. 136) to Strike Plaintiff's expert opinions is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Mitchell v. Wetzel
2:15-cv-01465 · 2019-10-25
Habeas petition (plaintiff) Granted in part

“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.”

Riley v. DeCarlo
2:11-cv-00537 · 2011-12-28
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“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.

Put Judge Bissoon's record to work

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

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