Dena Hanovice Palermo
How Judge Palermo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On Title VII retaliation she finds a prima facie case from close timing between protected activity and adverse action, and treats summary judgment as premature where the employer fails to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason that explains the timing of EACH adverse act (not just the ultimate removal).
“The short period and direct connection between the request and adverse actions establishes temporal proximity and implied causation. ... Defendant has still failed to state a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason that explains both the action and the timing for each of the alleged adverse actions, [so] the Court must assume that the actions were taken with retaliatory intent in recognition of Plaintiff's unrebutted prima facie case.”
Procedural preferences
Will not consider arguments raised for the first time in objections to an R&R that could have been presented to the magistrate judge -- they are waived (Cupit v. Whitley). Litigants should make their full case before the magistrate, not save arguments for the district judge.
“The Fifth Circuit has held that arguments which could have been raised before the Magistrate Judge but are raised for the first time in objections before the District Court, are waived. ... Defendant's fourth objection raises three substantive new arguments that could have been raised before Judge Palermo, so the objection is overruled.”
Cautions
Applies attorney immunity broadly to bar non-client suits (fraud and defamation) against opposing counsel arising from litigation conduct, focusing on the KIND of conduct (in-court statements, litigation emails) rather than its alleged wrongfulness; requires 'egregious misconduct' for fraud-on-the-court and denies leave to amend as futile to vexatious repeat litigants.
“Because the kind of conduct alleged to be fraudulent -- appearing before, making arguments to, and answering questions from, the court -- are the kinds of actions lawyers regularly undertake on behalf of their clients, Plaintiff's fraud claims are barred in their entirely by attorney immunity.”
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.
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 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.
“The Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 25, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Summary judgment is GRANTED on Plaintiff's claim for review of the MSPB decision and DENIED on all other claims.”
“Having reviewed the parties' submissions and the law, the Court recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and Plaintiff's clams be dismissed with prejudice. ... the Court recommends that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice, without leave to file an Amended Complaint.”
“Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED. The ALJ's decision denying benefits is AFFIRMED.”
“Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 17, is DENIED.”