William E. Duffin
How Judge Duffin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In diversity cases he makes a careful Erie prediction and will DECLINE to recognize a defense Wisconsin courts have never adopted when it conflicts with settled state doctrine -- here refusing to import the 'contract specification defense' into Wisconsin strict products liability.
“Given the Wisconsin Supreme Court's articulation of Wisconsin common law in Fuchsgruber and the recent codification of product liability law reaffirming Wisconsin's commitment to the principles of strict liability, the court concludes that, if presented with the question ... the Wisconsin Supreme Court would hold that it does not.”
Procedural preferences
He enforces Rule 9(b) fraud-pleading particularity rigorously in False Claims Act cases -- a detailed scheme is not enough without a representative example connecting a specific violation to a specific government-paid claim -- but defaults to dismissing WITHOUT prejudice with leave to amend rather than ending the case.
“the allegations contained in Count One of the amended complaint fall short of the particularity required by Rule 9(b). ... In the interest of justice, Kroening should be permitted to amend his complaint.”
Cautions
Do not bury an argument in a footnote before Judge Duffin -- he expressly cites his own Procedures for the proposition that a footnote is never an appropriate way to present an argument.
“noting in a footnote (never an appropriate means for presenting an argument, see Procedures for Litigants Appearing Before Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin, para. 3.B. ...)”
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 = 2 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to compel arbitration N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to stay N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to the findings in this Decision and Order, Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration as against Plaintiff Williams is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration as against Plaintiff Walker is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay Plaintiff Walker's proceedings is denied.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion of Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to dismiss the first amended complaint (ECF No. 50) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that relator Kurt Kroening may file a second amended complaint not later than February 5, 2016.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Symmetry's motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs' 'breach of express warranty' ... claims is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Symmetry's motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs' manufacturing defect claims (both in negligence and strict liability) is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Symmetry's motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiffs' claim of negligent design is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Symmetry's motion for summary judgment is denied in all other respects.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No court-wide grant rate is asserted; magistrate motion base rates are not recoverable from the assigned (warrant-heavy) docket the way they are for a district judge.