Christy Criswell Wiegand
How Judge Wiegand rules, drawn from 41 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wiegand
Christy Criswell Wiegand is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Wiegand received a commission on September 11, 2020.
Judge Wiegand's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wiegand, 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
Use a motion with proposed order for ordinary requests to the court.
“communication with the Court shall be in the form of a motion, accompanied by a proposed order specifying the relief requested.”
Motions
Confer and state the opponent’s position for routine motions.
“counsel for the moving party must confer with opposing counsel to obtain consent, and state in the motion whether consent was obtained.”
Motions
Confer before filing a Rule 12(b) motion to determine whether amendment can cure pleading defects.
“the parties must meet and confer before the filing of such a motion to determine whether any pleading defects are curable by amendment”
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 Wiegand decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Wintjen v. Denny's, Inc., Wiegand granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on her claim that the employer's tip-credit notice was deficient under the FLSA.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with respect to (1) her claim that Defendant's tip credit notice was deficient under the FLSA”
In Christopherson v. Polovinka, Wiegand granted summary judgment in a negligence case because the plaintiff could not recall details identifying negligent conduct by either driver.
“cannot recall any details about the accident that would establish which driver, if any, was negligent”
In McCoy, she denied a motion to compel arbitration without prejudice and ordered limited discovery because the employee’s assent to the arbitration terms was genuinely disputed.
“whether Plaintiff and Defendant had a meeting of the minds regarding the terms and conditions of the arbitration agreement and the employee handbook cannot be determined at this stage of the litigation”
Procedural preferences
In McDonough v. Leopold & Associates, PLLC, she held that the pleaded informational injury did not establish standing in an FDCPA case after TransUnion. She dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice, declined to consider harm theories that were not pleaded, and allowed a second amended complaint by June 23, 2023.
“the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing”
In Wintjen v. Denny's, Inc., she denied the plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion on the state-law class claims without prejudice pending Rule 23 class certification.
“is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pending certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23”
Cautions
In an FLSA case, Wiegand denied the Labor Department's motion to reconsider limited disclosure of government informant documents seven days before trial. After balancing the parties' interests, she found no clear error or manifest injustice.
“While DOL may disagree with the results of the Court’s balancing, the Court concludes that there was no error, let alone clear, and that this limited disclosure close to trial will not be unjust, let alone manifestly so.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. With respect to Count I of the Complaint, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with respect to (1) her claim that Defendant's tip credit notice was deficient under the FLSA and (2) her claim that Defendant failed to keep proper records of the time worked by its servers under the FLSA. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on the PMWA claims contained in Count II of the Complaint, however, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pending certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.”
“Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss are DENIED in full.”
“Ms. Waller's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth in the accompanying ORDER.”
“Leopold's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 108, and Trinity's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 106, are hereby GRANTED IN PART, such that the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, and the remainder of the parties' Motions, ECF Nos. 106, 108, 122, are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the remainder of the parties' Motions, ECF Nos. 106, 108, 122, are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Mr. McDonough is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by June 23, 2023.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that the DOL's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will be DENIED and Defendant's Motion will be GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion will be GRANTED. Accordingly, Mr. Christopherson's claims against both Defendants will be DISMISSED and final judgment will be entered in Defendants' favor.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Lawrence County Domestic Relation Section’s Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED, and Plaintiff Ashleigh M. Taylor’s Complaint will be DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 23, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 10, is hereby DISMISSED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED IN PART such that Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, X, and XI will be dismissed.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”
“Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 47, is DENIED without prejudice to SHNMIN re-filing such motion”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled caseload is weighted toward wage-and-hour collective and class actions, with additional consumer-credit and False Claims Act matters. Several cases were reassigned to Wiegand after filing, and the wage cases often lasted several years while proceeding through certification, decertification, and alternative dispute resolution.
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| 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 Wiegand: 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 Wiegand with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wiegand, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wiegand's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace