Gina M. Groh
How Judge Groh rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Groh decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In enforcing a contractual limitations period against an insured, the judge treated an unambiguous, undisputed filing-date-versus-loss-date calculation as dispositive rather than weighing the plaintiffs' equitable arguments about the clause's validity in any depth.
“It is similarly undisputed that the Plaintiffs initiated the instant case on April 27, 2023, over two years after the date of the fire.”
On a habeas exhaustion question, the judge looked past the magistrate's procedural framing to what the petitioner's direct appeal had actually presented to the state's highest court, rather than requiring a separate round of state collateral review as a formality.
“Since Petitioner appealed his conviction to the WVSCA which included the two grounds raised in support of his instant Petition, the Petition is fully exhausted and should be considered on its merits.”
Procedural preferences
Determines an individual's domicile for diversity jurisdiction from the totality of concrete circumstances, including voting, licensing, taxation, residence, property, community ties, and stated intent.
“the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that she is a Florida citizen.”
Cautions
Will deny a late amendment when the proposed theory rests on legal conclusions or possibilities rather than plausible facts and would introduce a new theory after substantial discovery and expired deadlines.
“Plaintiff has attempted to allege only two factors to justify piercing the corporate veil, but Plaintiffs allegations are either legal conclusions or are merely possible rather than plausible.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 136] is GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court SUSTAINS Petitioner's Objection. It is the opinion of this Court that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be, and is, hereby ORDERED REJECTED for the reasons more fully stated therein.”
“Therefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement [EOF No. 89] is GRANTED IN PART, as to Plaintiffs Count III: Discrimination in violation of the WVHRA, and DENIED IN PART regarding the Plaintiffs remaining three counts.”
“The Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 37] is DENIED; however, the Court'finds that the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of age discrimination.”
“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, [ECF 4], is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court hereby DENIES the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend his Complaint.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled docket is dominated by pro se federal-prisoner filings (2241 habeas petitions and Bivens/civil-rights suits) referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, alongside a smaller mix of diversity contract, construction, and removed civil actions; contested dispositive rulings in the prisoner cases are almost always R&R adoptions rather than motions briefed directly to the district judge.
Draft for Judge Groh with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Groh, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Groh's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace