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

Arthur H. Latimer

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut magistrate Retired 1993 · served 1971–1993 21 signed orders read

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

How Judge Latimer decides

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

What persuades

Latimer declined to require administrative exhaustion where the available process could not realistically provide timely relief.

“ordinarily beneficial and fair requirements of administrative exhaustion should not be imposed absent realistic possibility of a meaningful remedy.”

In a maritime wrongful-death dispute, he selected a dependency limit because it best fit the purposes of the federal remedy.

“a limit based upon dependence is in line with the philosophy of Moragne and subsequent cases.”

Procedural preferences

Latimer directed counsel to narrow and confer over discovery disputes before seeking a broader scheduling intervention.

“counsel are to reconsider positions and needs, then to confer fully”

He rejected a formal transactional label where combining claims would not produce concrete judicial economy.

“wooden application of the common transaction label does not yield real judicial economy”

Cautions

Latimer denied class certification on an incomplete record while leaving room for a fuller presentation during review.

“The instant application for such class certification is accordingly denied on the existing record”

He treated a permissive state-law counterclaim as outside federal jurisdiction where it shared no genuinely disputed facts with the federal claim.

“the truth in lending complaint and debt counterclaim lack any shared realm of genuine dispute.”

Signed rulings

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

Camassar v. United States
· 1975-08-25
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby granted.”

Alexander v. Yale University
· 1977-12-21
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the instant motion to dismiss is accordingly hereby granted as to plaintiffs Alexander, Olivarius, Reifler, Stone and Winkler, and denied as to plaintiff Price.”

Wahlstrom v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.
· 1992-04-07
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Subject to review, cf. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment is accordingly granted.”

Baskin v. G. Fox & Co.
· 1978-05-24
Class certification (plaintiff) Denied

“In a well-reasoned opinion, filed May 24, 1978, Magistrate Latimer denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification.”

Vitale v. Nuzzo
· 1986-12-03
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“the pending motions to dismiss are accordingly granted on the grounds previously stated.”

Chris' Wrecker Service, Inc. v. Town of Fairfield
· 1985-07-31
Motions to dismiss (municipal defendants) Granted

“The pending motion to dismiss is accordingly granted.”

Solomon v. Emanuelson
· 1983-10-31
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“plaintiffs’ pending motion for summary judgment as to liability is accordingly granted to the extent of this Court’s ruling that Section 21(4) of the Connecticut Practice Book, imposing a six-month waiting period of Connecticut residence before an attorney can apply for admission to the bar, is invalid because contravening the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ motions to dismiss or for summary judgment are also granted on the ground of demonstrated immunity from a damage award in this instance, with the provision of distinct further equitable relief also appearing unnecessary in the circumstances.”

Asparro v. United States
· 1972-10-30
Motion to vacate sentence (petitioner) Denied

“the proposed collateral proceeding is without merit.”

Ball v. Connecticut Bank and Trust Company
· 1975-11-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The pending motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction are accordingly granted.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted
Ruland v. General Electric Co.
· 1980-12-08
Class certification (plaintiffs) Denied

“The instant application for such class certification is accordingly denied on the existing record, subject to prior review by the trial judge”

Shirvani v. Capital Investing Corp.
· 1986-09-26
Motions to compel (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“plaintiffs’ pending motion to compel is accordingly granted as to the seven documents just mentioned, and otherwise denied without prejudice.”

Howell v. Town of Fairfield
· 1988-11-30
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the challenged defamation counterclaim is granted on the ground of lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction over that claim as merely ‘permissive’”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The reviewed decisions span civil rights, commercial, discovery, maritime, public-law, and post-conviction disputes but do not establish the distribution of Latimer's full caseload.

A historical record

Judge Latimer 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.