Louis Falk Oberdorfer
Judge Oberdorfer no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Oberdorfer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He found that a relator’s own investigation and previously unknown information could satisfy the original-source requirement.
“Given that Ervin provided important information that was not previously known to the public, this balancing tips in Ervin’s favor, and Ervin satisfies the jurisdictional requirement for ‘direct and independent knowledge.’”
He awarded fees when an agency’s insistence on maintaining misleading records forced the plaintiff to litigate.
“Because the defendant’s recalcitrant position forced Holz to vindicate his rights through this litigation, I conclude that attorney fees are warranted under the Privacy Act.”
Cautions
He enforced limitations periods from the point when the complaint showed actual or inquiry notice, even if the plaintiff later learned more about the alleged injury.
“Because all claims are barred by the statute of limitations, the remaining arguments for dismissal need not be addressed.”
He declined a fee award where later litigation produced no practical benefit for the student.
“The appropriate fee for litigation that wastes ‘the time and energy of counsel, court, and client,’ is no fee.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“ORDERED: that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and it is further ORDERED: that plaintiffs complaint be and hereby is dismissed.”
“For the foregoing reasons, an accompanying Order denies plaintiffs motions to amend the complaint and grants defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).”
“ORDERED: that Plaintiff’s Motion For A Stay Of Execution Without Bond Pending Appeal should be, and hereby is, DENIED.”
“ORDERED: that defendants’ motion to dismiss on justiciability grounds is hereby GRANTED IN PART as to defendant PT Arun LNG, Co.; and DENIED IN PART as to the remaining defendants and claims;”
“Pending is Hamilton Securities Group, Inc.’s second motion to dismiss Ervin and Associates, Inc.’s claims relating to optimization errors. For the reasons set forth below, an accompanying order denies the motion.”
“ORDERED: that defendants’ Motion To Dismiss The Amended Complaint Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment should be, and is hereby, DENIED;”
“A hearing was held on November 6, 1998. For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion is granted.”
“For all these reasons the Court concludes that, although the issue is not free from doubt, the Court of Appeals does have exclusive jurisdiction here, and that the motion to dismiss should be granted.”
“ORDERED: that defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be, and is hereby, GRANTED;”
“ORDERED: that plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint should be, and is hereby, DENIED;”
“After briefing and extensive arguments in court and in telephone conferences, an October 19, 2000 Order granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction for reasons explained in an accompanying memorandum.”
“The court will therefore deny Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 39] and grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 40] .”
A historical record
Judge Oberdorfer 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.