Rudolph Thomas Randa
How Judge Randa rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Randa no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Randa
Rudolph Thomas Randa was a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Randa received a commission on August 12, 1992. Judge Randa assumed senior status on February 5, 2016 and served until death on September 5, 2016.
How Judge Randa decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Modjeska v. UPS, Randa denied the employer summary judgment on most ADA and FMLA claims because of factual disputes, while granting it on the learning-disability failure-to-accommodate claim.
“With the exception of Modjeska's failure to accommodate claim with respect to his learning disability, UPS has failed to establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Cautions
In Gosey v. Aurora Medical Center, Randa granted the employer summary judgment and dismissed the employee’s discrimination and retaliation claims after finding no triable issue of pretext, adverse treatment, or causal connection on that record.
“Aurora's summary judgment motion is granted and this action is dismissed.”
In a challenge to Milwaukee’s entertainment-licensing rules, the court declined to dismiss a vagueness claim where the city had not analyzed the particular ordinance provisions that the plaintiff challenged.
“Milwaukee has not analyzed the challenged provisions;”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Aurora's summary judgment motion is granted and this action is dismissed.”
“With the exception of Modjeska's failure to accommodate claim with respect to his learning disability, UPS has failed to establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
“The United States’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 68) is DENIED;”
“1. Gillen’s motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 93] is DENIED; and”
“2. ICSOP’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 99] is DENIED.”
“Lakeview’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 14] is GRANTED.”
“J.C. Penney’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28) on its counterclaim action and dismissal of Lawson’s action against it is GRANTED.”
“1. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED;”
“1. Auxiant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 43] is GRANTED”
“PNC’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED;”
“The Defendants’ motion to dismiss the foreclosure claim (ECF No. 20) is DENIED;”
“The defendants’ motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 69] is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, consistent with the foregoing opinion.”
“3. The motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 84 and 89] are GRANTED;”
“The Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED.”
“The Defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 73) is DENIED.”
A historical record
Judge Randa no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.