Camille L. Velez-Rive
How Judge Velez-Rive decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Recent Supreme Court fraud-statute precedent carries real weight in her analysis: denying a motion to dismiss wire-fraud and money-laundering charges, she adopted the government's reading that the offense is a fraudulent-inducement theory targeting money or property, not a discredited 'right to control' theory, and that wire fraud does not require proof of economic loss.
“the Court agrees with the Government that wire fraud does not require economic loss, that the indictment does not present a right to control theory but rather a fraudulent-inducement theory and that it does not need to prove a duty to disclose”
Procedural preferences
On summary judgment she enforces the district's Local Rule 56 separate-statement-of-facts requirement strictly, treating properly supported facts as admitted and disregarding factual assertions that lack a record citation.
“Facts which are properly supported 'shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted' and the Court is free to ignore such facts that are not properly supported”
When a single argument disposes of a case, she resolves it on that ground alone and does not reach the parties' remaining arguments -- a sign she looks for the cleanest, narrowest basis for decision rather than writing more broadly than necessary.
“The Court does not reach the other arguments raised by Secretary Mayorkas because the analysis herein disposes of this case in its entirety”
Cautions
On APA review of federal agency action, she limits herself to the agency's own administrative record and will not let a party supplement it with outside evidence absent a strong showing of bad faith -- a high bar for a plaintiff trying to attack an agency's process rather than its record.
“Supplementation of an administrative record is the exception, not the rule, so Plaintiff must establish that supplementation is appropriate and make a strong showing that the EPA acted in bad faith”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Municipality's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and all claims against it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“Delgado-Carmona's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment is DENIED”
“Plaintiff's 'Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim' (Docket No. 21) is GRANTED and Defendant's Counterclaim (Docket No. 15) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“co-Defendant Dr. Soto's 'Motion for Partial Summary Judgment' is GRANTED. (Docket No. 104) and Co-Plaintiff Francisco Morales Cruz' claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“Plaintiff's 'Motion from Relief from Order at ECF No. 106' is DENIED”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 132)”
“the 'Motion for Summary Judgment' filed by co-Defendants Dr. Merced and the Puerto Rico Medical Defense Insurance Company is DENIED”
An evidentiary ruling ancillary to a still-pending preliminary-injunction request, limiting the agency-review record to the administrative record absent a strong showing of bad faith. It addressed the scope of evidence rather than deciding the preliminary-injunction request or another dispositive motion.
“DDP and GEMCO's 'Motion to Dismiss' (Docket Nos. 27 and 32) are GRANTED and the causes of action filed against them ... are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“Insulet's 'Motion for Partial Dismissal' (Docket No. 29) as to Mercado is GRANTED and Mercado's causes of action against Insulet are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE of being refiled in the appropriate forum”
“Insulet's 'Motion for Partial Dismissal' (Docket No. 30) of certain claims as to Meta Med ... are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“'Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Four for Failure to State an Offense Pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(b)(3)(B)(v)' is DENIED”
“Defendant Mulero's 'Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Case' (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED ... this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“Nilo's 'Motion for Injunctive Relief' is DENIED. (Docket No. 2)”
“Balchem's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety and all claims filed by Plaintiff against Balchem are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“Steri-Tech's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART (Docket No. 40) ... The claims against Steri-Tech for negligence and private nuisance remain alive”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The caseload mix reflects a general district docket with a steady Social Security appellate component and pro se filings alongside typical commercial, tort, and criminal litigation.
Put Judge Velez-Rive's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Velez-Rive actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Velez-Rive's own signed orders and cites them.