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

John Garrett Penn

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia district Deceased · served 1979–1998 Appointed by Jimmy Carter (Democratic) 21 signed orders read

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

How Judge Penn decides

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

What persuades

He treated informal notice and the proposed defendant’s lack of claimed prejudice as sufficient for relation back.

“Under these circumstances, the Court finds the notice to be satisfactory under Rule 15(c).”

He favored a readily administered rule tying scholarship-program breach to formal dismissal from school.

“Administrability necessitates a default rule that dismissal be used as the indicia of when a breach occurs, even if the government could potentially take action in extreme circumstances.”

Cautions

He rejected a request for immediate final judgment where the remaining counterclaims were closely intertwined with the adjudicated claim.

“The Court concludes that because the claims are so directly interrelated, final judgment should not be entered.”

He required a viable underlying claim before allowing a legal-malpractice action to proceed.

“Since plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the underlying cause of action was a good one, dismissal is appropriate.”

Signed rulings

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

Viles v. Claytor
· 1979-12-12
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“As a result the Court must deny the defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment.”

LaBrier v. AH Robins Co., Inc.
· 1982-09-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant A.H. Robins Co.) Denied

“Robins’ motion to dismiss is denied.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant G.D. Searle & Co.) Denied

“After giving careful consideration to the above authorities this Court concludes that Searle’s motion to dismiss should be denied and the case, including the claims against Searle, transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri.”

Motions to transfer (defendant A.H. Robins Co.) Granted

“After giving careful consideration to all of the above factors, the Court concludes that the motion to dismiss filed by Robins should be denied, the motion to dismiss filed by Searle should be denied, and the motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) should be granted, and the case transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.”

Rapoport v. Republic of Mexico
· 1985-10-17
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“In light of the above considerations, the motions to dismiss are granted.”

Farese v. United States Department of Justice
· 1987-12-22
Summary judgment (defendant U.S. Marshals Service) Granted

“The motion filed by USMS is granted and an appropriate order has been entered.”

Shaller v. Columbia Hospital for Women, Medical Center
· 1988-05-18
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, this case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Nowlin v. Director, District of Columbia Department of Corrections
· 1988-06-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the defendant is not entitled to the relief requested as a matter of law and therefore the defendant’s motion to dismiss will be granted.”

Berenter v. Quigg
· 1988-10-31
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“In view of the above the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is granted and the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied
Michelin v. Jenkins
· 1989-01-06
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“Accordingly, for the reason set forth above, the Court must dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Motion for leave to amend complaint (plaintiff) Denied

“Because plaintiff failed to amend in a timely fashion, the motion is denied.”

National Geographic Society v. International Media Associates Inc.
· 1990-01-29
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDERED that the National Geographic’s motion for summary judgment on count IV is granted, it is further”

Motion for entry of final judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that the National Geographic’s motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 54 is denied, it is further”

Motion to deposit funds into court registry (plaintiff) Denied

“ORDERED that the National Geographic’s motion for deposit of funds into the Court Registry is denied.”

Hollinger-Haye v. Western/Franki-Denys
· 1990-01-25
Motion for leave to amend complaint (plaintiff) Denied

“It is hereby ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is denied.”

Sherwood Van Lines, Inc. v. United States Department of the Navy
· 1990-03-13
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further”

Adams v. Virginia Cable Specialties, Inc.
· 1990-03-23
Summary judgment (defendant Citizens and Southern National Bank) Denied

“In view of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant Citizens’ motion for summary judgment is denied.”

A historical record

Judge Penn 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.