Jagan Nicholas Ranjan

How Judge Ranjan rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Position
district
Appointed by
Donald Trump (Republican)
ABA rating
Well Qualified (substantial majority; minority Qualified)
Education
Grove City College (B.A., 2000, summa cum laude; History); University of Michigan Law School (J.D., 2003, cum laude; Michigan Law Review note editor)
Signed orders read
15

How Judge Ranjan decides

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

What persuades

On a Rule 12(b)(6) MTD he holds plaintiffs to plausibility but rejects heightened pleading even in complex antitrust cases; market definition and cross-elasticity are fact questions best resolved after discovery, so he is reluctant to dismiss a market-definition theory once minimally pled.

“the Third Circuit, interpreting Twombly, has squarely held that antitrust cases do not require a heightened pleading standard.”

He readily defers a summary-judgment motion under Rule 56(d) when the non-movant shows by affidavit that essential facts are outside its control and need discovery: pre-discovery summary judgment is 'premature'.

“if a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may . . . defer considering the motion or deny it”

Procedural preferences

When he dismisses he tends to favor giving plaintiffs a defined, finite chance to cure (here, a fixed deadline and an explicit 'last chance'), but converts repeated, uncured deficiencies into dismissal with prejudice.

“the Court will allow amendment because MET's arguments allude to a possible definition of the relevant market that could be enough to survive dismissal.”

Cautions

He applies statutes of limitations strictly and reserves equitable tolling for genuinely extraordinary circumstances: a litigation-staff illness during the pandemic was not enough, even for a filing only 3 days late; do not rely on tolling for routine calendaring failures.

“the case manager's illness was not an 'extraordinary' occurrence that prevented Plaintiffs from filing.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Multiple Energy Technologies, LLC v. Under Armour, Inc.
· 2021-06-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Under Armour's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is GRANTED. MET must file any amended complaint by July 9, 2021.”

Multiple Energy Technologies, LLC v. Under Armour, Inc.
· 2022-02-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Under Armour's motion to dismiss is DENIED, but without prejudice to Under Armour raising these same arguments on a more developed record at summary judgment.”

Williams v. Becerra (consol. w/ Baird v. Becerra)
· 2022-06-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the amended complaints are DISMISSED without prejudice and these cases are hereby REMANDED to the Medicare Appeals Council for the reinstatement of Plaintiffs' administrative appeals.”

Lead Be Gone v. Golden Pheasant Sportsmen
· 2025-09-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Golden Pheasant's motion (ECF 33) is DENIED without prejudice.”

Strader v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al.
· 2019-10-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF 38] will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Williams v. City of Pittsburgh Public School District
2:23-cv-02132-NR · 2026-04-03
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Count II, but will deny it on Count I.”

Hopkins v. DeMaiolo
2:22-cv-01395-NR · 2026-04-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Court will grant summary judgment in Defendants’ favor.”

Timko v. NSPA Lounge LLC
2:23-cv-01307-NR · 2026-04-01
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Wyndham’s motion (ECF 51), and dismisses the claims outlined above with prejudice.”

Kirby v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
2:24-cv-00105-NR · 2026-01-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The Court HEREBY GRANTS UPMC Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF 58).”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The Court HEREBY GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Ms. Flick’s motion to dismiss (ECF 56).”

Telles v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company
2:25-cv-00447 · 2026-07-31
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Telleses’ partial motion for summary judgment”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“GRANTS Starr’s motion for summary judgment as to Count I”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“GRANTS Starr’s motion to dismiss as to Count II. Count II will be dismissed with prejudice, and with no leave to amend, given that this is a purely legal issue and amendment would be futile.”

Lishego v. Tri Star Motors, Inc.
2:24-cv-01458 · 2026-08-05
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“On careful review, the Court grants in part and denies in part Tri Star’s motion for summary judgment and denies Tri Star’s motion for sanctions.”

Motion for sanctions (defendant) Denied

“Tri Star’s motion for sanctions (ECF 46) is also denied.”

Kauffman v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
1:25-cv-00100 · 2026-08-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo sorted through the complaint, and motions to dismiss, and issued a comprehensive and detailed R&R, in which he sensibly severed the April 25, 2023, claims to make the case more manageable, dismissed certain claims, and allowed others to proceed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

  • The sampled 2026 docket contains a large concentration of Section 2241 alien-detainee habeas petitions involving the Moshannon Valley Processing Center.
  • Reviewed filings from 2021 and 2022 also include patent and Lanham Act counterfeit-goods suits, prisoner civil-rights cases, antitrust, arbitration, self-represented matters, and criminal cases.
  • Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly handled referrals in some of these matters.

Draft for Judge Ranjan with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ranjan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Ranjan's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace