🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

James Martin Fitzgerald

United States District Court for the District of Alaska district Retired 2011 · served 1974–2011 Appointed by Gerald Ford (Republican) 19 signed orders read

Judge Fitzgerald no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Fitzgerald decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

He construes remedial securities statutes purposively: reading the 1933 and 1934 Acts together, he recognized an implied private right of action for fraud under Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act even though the statute creates no express civil remedy, while declining to imply one under subsections whose overlap with the express remedies of Sections 11 and 12 would circumvent their limits.

“a private cause of action may be implied under Section 17(a)(3) of the 1933 Act.”

In fisheries-forfeiture cases under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act he reads the statute to permit partial forfeiture rather than automatic condemnation of the entire vessel, and calibrates the sanction to the gravity of the violation -- here declining to forfeit the ship itself but forfeiting the full catch and assessing a monetary penalty.

“I conclude upon consideration that in this case forfeiture of the vessel is not warranted.”

Procedural preferences

In removal disputes he enforces the complete-diversity requirement strictly: a single injury pleaded on multiple theories against multiple defendants is not a 'separate and independent' claim under Section 1441(c), so joining a non-diverse defendant defeats removal and the action is remanded to state court.

“The plaintiff in this case has stated a claim under Alaska law against his father, hence there is incomplete diversity and the action must be remanded.”

He holds vessel arrests initiated by private parties to procedural due process -- non-conclusory verified allegations, judicial (not clerk) participation in issuing the warrant, and a prompt post-seizure hearing -- and will vacate an arrest carried out under the bare admiralty arrest rule absent those safeguards.

“The procedures required by Admiralty Rule C fail to provide the due process standards now well established by the Supreme Court.”

In challenges to federal regulatory action he insists on exhaustion of administrative remedies and final agency action before judicial review, deferring to the agency's expertise where Congress has committed the matter to an ongoing administrative process.

“administrative process should be exhausted before judicial intervention begins.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Getty v. Sturm-Ruger and Co.
462 F. Supp. 949 · 1979-01-04
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“The motion to remand is GRANTED and the Clerk shall prepare the Order of Remand.”

Alsop v. Alaska (In re Alsop)
22 B.R. 1017 · 1982-05-05
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant) Denied

“The decision of the bankruptcy judge is AFFIRMED.”

First National Bank of Anchorage v. Roach (In re Roach)
13 B.R. 431 · 1980-09-09
Bankruptcy appeal (appellant) Denied

“I conclude that there is no merit to this appeal. Accordingly, the final order of the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.”

In re the Complaint of Hokkaido Fisheries Co.
506 F. Supp. 631 · 1981-02-04
Motion to file claim (plaintiff) Granted

“I conclude that the government may file separate claims under the CWA for costs of cleanup.”

Osamu Mishima v. United States
507 F. Supp. 131 · 1981-02-11
Motion to quash (petitioner) Denied

“the motion to quash must be denied.”

Gay v. Williams
486 F. Supp. 12 · 1979-09-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Summary judgment is also granted in favor of defendant AP.”

Demoe v. Dean Witter & Co.
476 F. Supp. 275 · 1979-09-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“motion to dismiss Count I of the complaint is hereby DENIED.”

Eagle v. Kenai Peninsula Borough
489 F. Supp. 138 · 1980-04-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“I conclude that the defendants, as a group, and each of them are entitled to summary judgment since they violated no right of the plaintiff.”

Motion to dissolve lien (defendant) Granted

“are null and void and shall be can-celled.”

Motion for attorney fees (defendant) Granted

“defendants are allowed their reasonable costs”

Shields v. United States
504 F. Supp. 1216 · 1981-01-09
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Motion for Summary Judgment is, therefore, DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED.”

Gomez v. Harris
504 F. Supp. 1342 · 1981-01-16
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“The decision of the secretary is reversed, and the case is remanded to the department for further proceedings.”

Gregoire v. Underwriters at Lloyds
559 F. Supp. 596 · 1982-01-20
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Resolution of this issue does not allow me to grant summary judgment for either party.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
Municipality of Anchorage v. Hitachi Cable, Ltd.
547 F. Supp. 633 · 1982-09-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the company has standing to bring an action for damages under section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“motion for summary judgment on liability on its claims under section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act is GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

As a district and then senior judge from 1974 to 2006, Fitzgerald carried a full federal trial docket spanning admiralty and fisheries, Alaska Native land, civil-rights, labor, and criminal matters. The surviving case information covers only a small portion of that service and does not support career-wide caseload rates.

A historical record

Judge Fitzgerald 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.