Joseph Peter Stadtmueller
How Judge Stadtmueller rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Stadtmueller decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Stadtmueller left product-similarity questions for trial when each side presented competing evidence.
“However, given the defendants’ evidence highlighting differences, and Metso’s evidence demonstrating similarity, the question of whether the products are sufficiently similar requires factual determinations not appropriately made at the summary judgment phase.”
Stadtmueller treated a location-based augmented-reality game as protected expression and required the county to justify restrictions under First Amendment standards.
“Accordingly, the Court concludes that Texas Rope ’Em qualifies for First Amendment protection and that the County’s motion to dismiss on that ground must be denied.”
Procedural preferences
Stadtmueller required a summary-judgment opponent to identify specific record facts rather than rely on pleadings alone.
“A party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Cautions
Stadtmueller did not allow a party to replace the factual theory pleaded in the complaint while opposing summary judgment.
“Her complaint contains not a whisper about such allegations, however, and she cannot make such a drastic change to the factual basis of her claim in response to a motion for summary judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that the government’s motion for summary judgment (Docket # 16) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendant Luebke’s motion to dismiss (Docket # 7) be and the same is hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiffs Claims for Misappropriation of Combination Trade Secrets Relating to XL600 and XL900 Conical Crushers (Docket # 232) be and the same is hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for a permanent injunction and default judgment (Docket # 125) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to amend/correct the scheduling order (Docket # 99) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 37 (Docket # 100) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot; and”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by Dr. Cahee and the Fond du Lac Clinic (Docket #38) be and the same is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court grants summary judgment as to Rose’s Rehabilitation Act claim against Dr. Cahee and the Fond du Lac Clinic and denies summary judgment as to the remaining claims against these defendants.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by Agnesian (Docket # 47) be and the same is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court grants summary judgment as to Rose’s ADA claim against Agnesian and denies summary judgment as to the remaining claims against Agnesian.”
“IT IS ORDERED that, the defendant having provided further briefing on its motion for summary judgment (Docket # 33) as requested by the Court (Docket # 44), the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket #44) be and the same is hereby GRANTED in all remaining respects and the plaintiffs equitable estoppel and breach of implied duty claims be and the same are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; and”
“IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 60) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendants County of Milwaukee and David A. Clarke, Jr.’s motion for partial summary judgment *811(Docket # 132) be and the same is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in-tervenor Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corporation’s motion for summary judgment (Docket # 129) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Xavier D. Thicklen’s motion to join the plaintiffs briefing in opposition to summary judgment (Docket # 151) be and the same is hereby GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant’s motions to dismiss (Docket # 11 and # 12) be and the same are hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (Docket # 6) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (Docket # 14) be and the same is hereby DENIED; and”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and hold in abeyance Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (Docket #23) be and the same is hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Docket # 63) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket # 37) be and the same is hereby GRANTED ;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to strike (Docket # 59) be and the same is hereby DENIED ; and”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The indexed slices included civil-rights, prisoner, contract, product-liability, labor, Social Security, intellectual-property, bankruptcy, criminal, forfeiture, and habeas matters. The sample intentionally combined older terminated cases with recent pending cases.
Draft for Judge Stadtmueller with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Stadtmueller, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Stadtmueller's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace