Jagan Nicholas Ranjan
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.”
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.
| Motions to dismiss N = 4 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“Under Armour's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint is GRANTED. MET must file any amended complaint by July 9, 2021.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Golden Pheasant's motion (ECF 33) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“the Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF 38] will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Enumerated via assigned_judge='J. Nicholas Ranjan'. 2026 docket dominated by 463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee (28:2241) petitions (Moshannon Valley Processing Center). 2021-2022 filing window shows a general mix: patent / Lanham Act 'Schedule A' counterfeit suits (Broadway Pine Brands), prisoner civil rights (Jackson v. Irwin, ref. MJ Maureen P. Kelly), antitrust (MET v. Under Armour), arbitration (Highmark v. Bromedicon), pro se (Foland v. Facebook), and a substantial criminal docket. Referral magistrate observed: Maureen P. Kelly. Not tallied to a fixed N.