Marilyn Jean Horan
How Judge Horan rules, drawn from 49 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Horan
Marilyn Jean Horan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Horan received a commission on September 19, 2018.
Judge Horan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Horan, 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
Motions
A civil motion must state whether the movant discussed it with the other parties and their positions.
“The motion shall affirmatively state whether the moving party has discussed the motion with all other parties and whether the parties have discussed their positions relative to the relief sought.”
Motions
Label a joint, consented-to, or uncontested motion accordingly.
“A joint, consented-to, or uncontested motion shall be so titled.”
Motions
The civil-motion standing order applies to all pending civil proceedings unless the court orders otherwise.
“is applicable to all pending civil proceedings unless otherwise ordered by the Court.”
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 Horan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Lyles v. North American Dental Group, LLC, Horan dismissed the disability-discrimination claim because the plaintiff had not filed an EEOC charge or received a right-to-sue letter.
“Because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC and receiving a right to sue letter, her disability discrimination claim cannot be maintained.”
In DeRito v. Walmart Stores East, L.P., Horan granted summary judgment because the evidence did not show Walmart had notice of the hazardous condition.
“absent notice of the hazardous conditions, there is no duty upon Walmart in this case.”
Procedural preferences
In Lyles v. North American Dental Group, LLC, Horan applied the response deadline set by her Standing Order on Civil Motion Practice to the pending dismissal motion.
“Under this Court's Standing Order and Procedures on Civil Motion Practice (ECF No. 3), any response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should have been filed on or before August 30, 2021.”
Cautions
In Lyles v. North American Dental Group, LLC, the plaintiff did not respond to the dismissal motions after a show-cause order. Judge Horan granted the motions, finding that the disability-discrimination claim had not exhausted administrative remedies and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claim.
“To date, Ms. Lyles has not filed a Response. Accordingly, the matter is now ripe for consideration.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(1) will both be granted.”
“Defendant American Cap Company's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“Defendant Walmart Stores East, L.P.'s Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED.”
Pro se prisoner suit; adopting Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly's report and recommendation over objections after de novo review. In a sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e), the court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and denied leave to amend as futile, while dismissing the state claims without prejudice. 'all claims asserted by Mr. Taylor are dismissed, and the Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.' This screening disposition did not resolve a party motion.
Pro se in forma pauperis filing. The court granted pauper status, dismissed the complaint under Section 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous, failing to state a claim, and violating Rule 8, and denied leave to amend as futile. It also denied the plaintiff's pro se summary-judgment motion as premature. This was principally a screening disposition, and the summary-judgment request was resolved on procedural timing rather than the merits.
“The Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is hereby GRANTED. This matter is hereby referred for individual arbitration, and the matter is STAYED pending the outcome of such proceedings.”
“THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 15) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Defendants, AIL and Simon Arias, Arias Agencies, and S.A. Holdings, LLC, Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. A stay against those defendants is entered, pending completion of arbitration unless Court intervention becomes necessary.”
“Defendant, Michael Russin’s, Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied.”
“Following consideration of Mr. Scorza’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (ECF No. 21), the respective briefs (ECF Nos. 25 and 26), Exhibits (ECF No. 29), testimony, the arguments of counsel, and for the following reasons, Mr. Scorza’s Motion to Confirm will be granted and additional counsel fees will be awarded as set forth below.”
“Accordingly, following consideration of the foregoing, Mr. Warner’s Motion for Remand will be granted.”
“THEREFORE, the Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant Lemons and Defendant City of Washington, are hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in Defendants’ favor.”
“A default judgment does not likely place her in any better position than when she first filed this suit.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The selected case records include prisoner civil-rights, product-liability, insurance, disability, employment, securities, and wage-and-hour matters. The motion timeline focuses on four terminated cases, with most outcomes arising in a single contract and consumer-protection trial.
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 | 3 |
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 2 |
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 Horan: 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 Horan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Horan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Horan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace