Robert J. Krask
How Judge Krask decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a USERRA discrimination claim he reads the summary-judgment record favorably to the non-movant on causation: he found a reasonable jury could infer antimilitary animus from supervisors' documented prior frustration with the plaintiff's reserve-training schedule, recommending the claim survive (a view the district judge later overrode on agency grounds).
“a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaza and Betancourt were motivated by a discriminatory animus against Padilla-Ruiz's Army Reserve membership when they recommended his termination because of the evidence in the record that both ... had previously expressed frustration with Padilla-Ruiz's Army Reserve training schedule.”
In Social Security disability appeals -- the largest single vein of his referred dispositive work -- he most often sides with the agency: across 23 reviewed appeals he recommended affirming the Commissioner's denial of benefits in 20 and reversing/remanding in only 3, and every recommendation in that cohort was adopted by the district judge without modification.
“The Court ADOPTS AND APPROVES IN FULL the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned R&R.”
On a summary-judgment record built on a pro se plaintiff's unsworn opposition papers, he will not excuse the evidentiary defect just because the plaintiff later tries to fix it with a sworn declaration filed only after seeing his recommendation -- he treats belatedly sworn evidence as untimely and outside the record.
“Plaintiff did not submit an affidavit to oppose summary judgment, nor did she swear under penalty of perjury that the factual statements in her statement of facts, her opposition to summary judgment, or her sur-reply are true.”
Procedural preferences
He will enforce a statute of limitations against a plaintiff who abused refiling/tolling rules, recommending dismissal of a tort claim as time-barred where the plaintiff repeatedly refiled in a venue already ruled improper and let years lapse ('dilatory pursuit').
“Plaintiffs' Puerto Rico tort claim should be dismissed as time-barred because of Plaintiffs' 'dilatory pursuit' of their claim against COMTek.”
Faced with a party's discovery misconduct, he calibrates the sanction to what deters and cures prejudice rather than reaching for case-ending dismissal: in a case where a pro se plaintiff filed over 50 motions and forced five discovery hearings, he found bad faith and prejudice but recommended a lesser evidentiary-use sanction instead of dismissal.
“Judge Krask determined that Plaintiff acted in bad faith with respect to her discovery obligations. Plaintiff's actions prejudiced Defendant, and a need existed to deter further noncompliance ... Judge Krask ultimately concluded that the dismissal of this action was unwarranted and that a lesser sanction ... would be effective to cure the prejudice and deter further noncompliance.”
Cautions
Twenty-three of the 26 reviewed motions are Social Security disability appeals, the best-documented high-volume portion of Judge Krask's referred docket. The 20 affirmances in those 23 appeals describe that specific body of work, not a general tendency across civil motion types. Contract, tort, employment, and wage-and-hour consent cases are represented only lightly.
“The Court ADOPTS AND APPROVES IN FULL the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned R&R.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The R & R recommends that COMTek's Motion should be denied as to Padilla-Ruiz's USERRA claim, but should be granted as to Plaintiffs' tort claim.”
“It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“it is hereby recommended that plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 31) be DENIED as to counts one and two and that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36) be GRANTED as to counts one and two.”
“The Court ADOPTS AND APPROVES IN FULL the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's thorough 21 Report and Recommendations, Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendant's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R, ECF No. 19, and ADOPTS AND APPROVES IN FULL the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned R&R, filed on April 26, 2023, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, ECF No. 12, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, ECF No. 15.”
“ORDER granting 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 18 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 21 Report and Recommendations.”
“The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's 26 Objection and ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge's 25 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendant's 22 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and the decision of the Acting Commissioner is AFFIRMED.”
“The Court ADOPTS in full the findings and recommendations set for in the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge 13. The final decision of the Commissioner is VACATED the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.”
“FINAL ORDER: Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and the Commissioner's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Court hereby ADOPTS the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge as set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed on April 14, 2021, ECF No. 17. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 15, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, and AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“FINAL ORDER denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting the Commissioner's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 18 Report and Recommendations. The Court UPHOLDS the final decision of the Commissioner.”
“The Court does hereby ACCEPT the findings and recommendations set forth in the 17 United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that the Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; the Commissioner's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and this case is DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No overall nature-of-suit distribution or multi-case duration cohort is computed: the record mixes his consent civil docket with cases on which he was only designated and with the criminal-duty rotation.
Put Judge Krask's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Krask actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Krask's own signed orders and cites them.