Carolyn Joyce Reaber Dimmick
Judge Dimmick no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Dimmick decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
She treated clear disclosure in the governing offering document as fatal to a securities-fraud claim.
“Because the Court finds, as a matter of law, that the Official Statement is not ambiguous and that it informs investors that the bonds were redeemable when the mandatory redemption account has sufficient funds, the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.”
She rejected documentary evidence whose date was undermined by an address that did not yet exist.
“this Court concludes that there is no credible evidence to support this argument. The invoice submitted as proof has been discredited by the fact that the address on it did not exist in 1989.”
She read the federal patent-licensing statute as permitting an agency to delegate enforcement power to its licensee.
“This Court concludes that section 207(a)(2) is an exception to section 516”
Procedural preferences
She would not reconsider a summary-judgment ruling based on evidence or theories that could have been presented earlier.
“Summary judgment motions take the place of trials. Motions for reconsideration, therefore, are not justified on the basis of new evidence which could have been discovered prior to the Court’s ruling.”
She required concrete evidence of a dangerous probability of monopolization rather than relying on market-share rhetoric alone.
“Plaintiff offers no evidence that defendant has a dangerous probability of monopolizing the market.”
Cautions
An insured's failure to disclose material information could void coverage even after a later attempted correction.
“In conclusion, TIE met its burden of showing that Onyon made material misstatements and that these misstatements voided the policy, thereby precluding any coverage.”
A party that knowingly counseled customers to evade contractual restrictions could not retain the resulting profits in equity.
“But the Exchange admits to knowing of the provisions against sale of Fly-Write tickets and counseling its customers in subterfuge. Thus this Court concludes that the Exchange should not in good conscience profit from these activities.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“THEREFORE, claimant Kabani’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied”
“defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue is denied”
“Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is granted as follows: Defendant is, enjoined from using RPI’s trademark of a two-part, dyed tanning gel in a clear bottle.”
“the motion of the United States is denied and that the motion of plaintiff is granted.”
“THEREFORE, the motion of defendants to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages for failure to pay maintenance and cure is DENIED.”
“THEREFORE, defendants’ motion is GRANTED, and this cause of action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED”
“plaintiff’s motion for entry of order of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) is DENIED”
“plaintiff’s motion to strike the Schechter affidavit is GRANTED”
“The Court, however, recognizes that its Order of October 23, 1986 ‘involved a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation’.”
“defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.”
“defendant’s motion to strike the affidavit of Robert Wilson is DENIED”
“plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED”
“In accordance with the foregoing, TIE’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“The Ticket Exchange’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Northwest Airlines’ motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART, with the Court concluding Northwest is entitled to an injunction and that liability exists under the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the doctrine of unjust enrichment, with damages to be determined.”
“The Court agrees and accordingly dismisses this cause of action.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 389.5 days (N = 20).
All twenty sampled matters were Social Security appeals. Their durations describe this bounded historical cohort rather than the judge's broader federal caseload.
A historical record
Judge Dimmick no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.