Phillip S. Figa
Judge Figa no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Figa decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He treated filed tariffs as binding law and excluded arguments that would alter tariff liability through waiver or release.
“Following this mandate, courts strictly interpret the filed tariff doctrine.”
He required proof of an ADA-covered impairment before reaching the defendant's alternative summary-judgment arguments.
“Accordingly, this Court finds that plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing that he is disabled by a physical impairment within the meaning of the ADA.”
Procedural preferences
He permitted amendment when a possible limitations defense did not establish futility on the record before him.
“this Court cannot say at this time that the request for leave to amend is futile on the basis of this potential affirmative defense.”
On review of a detention order, he made an independent factual determination without deferring to the magistrate judge.
“no deference to the magistrate judge’s findings or conclusion.”
He applied a narrow standard to challenges seeking to vacate arbitration awards for legal error.
“Manifest disregard of the law means any ‘willful inattentiveness to the governing law,’ and something ‘more than error or misunderstanding with respect to the law.’”
Cautions
He declined to enter judgment on behalf of a nonintervening government after the relator's jurisdiction failed.
“this Court has no jurisdiction to enter judgment on behalf of the United States, and relator’s counsel’s motion is denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that relator’s counsel’s Motion to Finalize and Enter Judgment on Behalf of the United States of America (Dkt.#232) is DENIED.”
“It is further ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Stay Entry of Judgment for Thirty Days (Dkt.# 233) is DENIED.”
“ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE (APPORTIONMENT)”
“The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a second amended judgment in accordance with this Order that includes as a separate item of damages award the amount of $400,000 for physical impairment, plus the prejudgment interest property awarded as to that amount.”
“For these reasons, Qwest’s Motion in Limine No. 5 is GRANTED.”
“Qwest’s Motion in Limine No. 3: Evidence and Argument That Qwest’s Tariff Prohibits Collection of Undercharges (Dkt.# 192), filed May 2, 2005, is also *1253 GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s first Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.# 5) and second Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.# 13) are DENIED as to the Third Claim for Relief in plaintiffs Amended Complaint, Promissory Estoppel, and are GRANTED as to the Fourth Claim for Relief and Fifth Claim for Relief in plaintiffs Amended Complaint, Outrageous Conduct and Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, respectively.”
“The State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss RLUIPA Claim (Dkt.# 127) is DENIED;”
“Defendant John Watt’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 132) is GRANTED;”
“State Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 129) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:”
“The Government’s motion (Dkt # 18) is GRANTED and Defendant Borjas-Alvarez shall remain in the custody of the United States Marshal for the District of Colorado.”
“For the above stated reasons, Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.# 30), filed on July 25, 2005 by all defendants other than Defendant Corsentino, is GRANTED, and plaintiffs claims against these defendants are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendant Corsentino’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 23), filed by Defendant Corsentino on July 11, 2005, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.# 8) filed June 13, 2005, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Plaintiffs First Amended Request for Injunction (Dkt.# 20) both filed July 5, 2005, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 39) filed August 4, 2005 and Plaintiffs Verified Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Dkt.# 55) filed August 22, 2005, are DENIED.”
“The Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (Dkt. #5) is therefore GRANTED and the case is ordered transferred to the District of Nebraska.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 16) is GRANTED, and plaintiffs case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Amend his complaint (Dkt. # 40) is GRANTED and plaintiffs amended complaint is deemed filed as of November 3, 2003;”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 27) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 46) is DENIED.”
“As the complaint was amended and the- correct party named and served, this motion is DENIED as moot.”
“The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is therefore DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Among the eight reviewed early-tenure cases, five were diversity matters and three raised federal questions. Product-liability disputes appeared twice; the remaining case types appeared once each. All were terminated, and this purposive slice is not a career-wide caseload profile.
A historical record
Judge Figa 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.