Mark Raymond Hornak
How Judge Hornak rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hornak
Mark Raymond Hornak is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Hornak received a commission on October 19, 2011.
Judge Hornak's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hornak, 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.
- Chambers’ Rules and Pretrial Orders ↗
- Order on Civil Motion Practice ↗
- Sentencing Hearing Order ↗
- Trial Procedures ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Use motions with proposed orders rather than letters to chambers for ordinary requests.
“Communication with the Court should be in the form of motions (rather than letters to Chambers), accompanied by a proposed order specifying the relief requested.”
Contacting chambers
Call chambers for an emergency or an agreed short filing extension.
“In an emergency situation, or in situations involving agreed-upon requests for a short extension of a filing deadline, counsel should telephone Chambers.”
Trial
Contact the courtroom deputy at least one week before trial if using technology.
“If you will be using any technology during the trial, please contact the Courtroom Deputy, Brian Babik, at least one (1) week in advance to discuss set-up at a time prior to the day of jury selection to test your equipment.”
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 Hornak decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Basile v. Westmoreland County, Hornak held that the plaintiff did not have to plead the exact age of his named replacement to survive dismissal of an age-discrimination claim.
“Plaintiff is not required to plead the exact age of his already-named replacement in order to survive a motion to dismiss.”
In Howard v. Arconic Inc., Hornak dismissed the securities-fraud complaint without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs a deadline to file a compliant second amended complaint, after which dismissal would become final.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted without prejudice. Should Plaintiffs not file a SAC in compliance with this Opinion and Order by the specified date, the dismissal shall convert to a dismissal with prejudice without further notice or Order.”
In Molina v. Little, he granted the defendants' dismissal motion in part. He dismissed some claims with prejudice while allowing others to proceed, addressing the challenged claims and defendants separately.
“Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
Procedural preferences
In the consolidated DeForte and Townsend civil-rights cases, he granted summary judgment against Townsend on the federal claim and dismissed Townsend's related state-law claims without prejudice.
“dismiss Plaintiff Townsend's state law claims without prejudice.”
In Diamond v. Lawrence County Area Vocational Technical School Authority, Hornak granted the employer summary judgment on an age-discrimination claim. He found that general challenges to witness credibility, without evidence of unlawful motive, did not create a triable fact issue about pretext.
“challenging generally the credibility of a movant's witnesses, without any supporting evidence of unlawful motive, does not itself create a question of material fact barring summary judgment.”
In United States v. Devon Bell, Hornak dismissed a compassionate-release motion without prejudice because Bell had not shown that he first submitted a request to the prison warden.
“DISMISSED without prejudice, subject to reassertion should the Defendant make a showing on the record that he has submitted an appropriate request to the Warden of the Bureau of Prisons facility”
After a late expert valuation disclosure, the court allowed a trial continuance to cure prejudice and declined to exclude the testimony, while cautioning that another lapse could have a different result.
“The Court files this Memorandum Opinion to further set forth its reasoning in denying”
Cautions
In Basile v. Westmoreland County, Hornak declined to strike the plaintiff's willfulness theory at the pleading stage, describing the defendant's request as too early.
“Defendant's attempt to strike Plaintiff's 'claim' of willfulness simply comes too early in the game.”
In Harper v. Allegheny County, he granted reconsideration of his own qualified-immunity dismissal after finding that ruling was a clear error of law.
“The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED as to the argument that the Court's decision to grant the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24) as to Defendant Roberson on qualified immunity grounds was a clear error of law.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court will GRANT in full the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff DeForte”
“GRANT the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Townsend in part, specifically as to Plaintiff Townsend's federal claim, and dismiss Plaintiff Townsend's state law claims without prejudice.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.”
“Therefore, the Petition to Remand is denied.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED, but without prejudice. Consistent with Third Circuit precedent, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED”
“that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED”
“Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10) is DENIED and that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED.”
“Because the Court finds that a reasonable jury could not so find in Plaintiff's favor, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the CTC's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
“LabMD's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) filed by Defendants Lisa V. Caulfield, Rich Fitzgerald, The Allegheny County, the Public Defender's Office, and Elliott C. Howsie is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED.”
“to the extent the filings of the Plaintiff arriving after this Court entered its Order adopting the Report and Recommendation are treated as being a Motion for Reconsideration, such Motion is denied.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted without prejudice. Should Plaintiffs not file a SAC in compliance with this Opinion and Order by the specified date, the dismissal shall convert to a dismissal with prejudice without further notice or Order.”
“Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint in full. (ECF No. 41). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs' defective design claims based on defective design will proceed to trial. As to their claims based on alleged failure to provide adequate warnings, or to provide a post-sale warning, summary judgment will be granted, and those claims arising in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' Motion to Preclude the Testimony of Kristopher Seluga, M.S., P.E., Pursuant to Rule 702 is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 2018-2022 sample includes employment and other civil-rights, False Claims Act, wage-and-hour, consumer, federal foreclosure, and criminal matters. Many sampled civil cases resolved through court-ordered mediation before a dispositive ruling.
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 | 6 |
| 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 | 8 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 6 | 8 |
| Sep 2025 | 9 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 7 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 7 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 11 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 4 |
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 Hornak: 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 Hornak with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hornak, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hornak's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace