Cathy Bissoon
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.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to exclude expert N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Enumerated via assigned_judge='Cathy Bissoon' (district-era), cases filed 2020-2022. NOS mix: civil rights / employment (Title VII, ADA, Section 1981, Bivens), False Claims Act qui tam (US v. Abry Partners, US v. Maraposa Surgical), labor/FELA (CSX), and criminal. Referral magistrate observed: Patricia Dodge. Not tallied to a fixed N; many employment dockets terminate via mediation/administrative closing (durations groundable, dispositive-motion latency sparse).