Peter G. Sheridan
How Judge Sheridan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Under ERISA's deferential arbitrary-and-capricious review (where the plan grants the administrator discretionary authority), a benefits denial supported by multiple consistent medical/vocational opinions will be upheld; a treating physician's conclusory contrary opinion and a non-controlling SSA disability award do not make the administrator's decision unreasonable.
“the Pension Committee gave more weight to the opinions of the medical witnesses supporting Van Deventer's ability to perform a sedentary job. The Court found no evidence of any breach of any fiduciary duty owed to Van Deventer.”
Reads federal jurisdictional statutes narrowly: a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act count fails where the only alleged 'loss' is lost business revenue or the cost of a forensic investigation into a disloyal employee, because CFAA loss is confined to damage to the computer/data or service interruption. Losing the sole federal claim does not, however, automatically end a years-old case -- supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims may be retained for judicial economy.
“TelQuest does not allege that it suffered a loss of revenue because their computer functions were inoperative, but because they lost customers as a result of defendants' business activities. This does not constitute loss under the CFAA.”
Procedural preferences
On a Title VII pleading, distinguishes a retaliation claim (which survives on temporal proximity supplying the causal inference) from race/ancestry discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims, which are dismissed when supported only by conclusory labels. Enforces the 90-day right-to-sue filing deadline strictly and rejects the continuing-violation theory for discrete acts (discipline, suspension, termination).
“Plaintiff bases her race and ancestry allegations on mere speculation about the motives behind her discipline and discharge. ... 'Speculation is simply not evidence of discrimination.' ... therefore, counts two and three are dismissed.”
Cautions
Treats a preliminary injunction / TRO as an 'extraordinary remedy': the movant must satisfy all four factors and, critically, cannot clear the likelihood-of-success-on-the-merits prong where the underlying complaint fails to state a claim. Move to dismiss and enjoin in the same posture and a deficient complaint sinks both.
“Here, Plaintiff's motion fails on the first factor. Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because his complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction are denied.”
“Defendants' motion is granted with respect to dismissing the CFAA claim and denied with respect to dismissing the state law claims.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's second motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 31) is denied; and it is further”
“ORDERED Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) is granted.”
“the defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. ... Plaintiff may move to amend his complaint within 45 days of this Opinion and Order.”
“Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion is denied as to the first count, and the remaining counts (2-5) are hereby dismissed.”
“ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No 12) is hereby DENIED for the reasons stated on the record”
“ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No 31) is hereby DENIED for the reasons stated on the record”
“ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Modify Conditions of Release (ECF No 37) is hereby DENIED for the reasons stated on the record”
“ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No 40) is hereby DENIED as moot for the reasons stated on the record.”
“For these reasons and those below, the AR-15 Provision of Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional. The LCM Amendment is constitutional. Both Daubert motions are also denied.”
“The AR-15 Provision of Assault Fireanns Law is unconstitutional. The LCM Amendment is constitutional. Both Daubert motions are also denied.”
“ORDERED that Heligren and Cox’s Motion for Remand (ECF No. 1129) is hereby DENIED.”
“ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to overturn the Order revoking bail in the EDPA Criminal Action is DENIED”
“ORDERED that the United States of America’s motion to strike Defendant’s pro se pleading (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED”
“ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the May 16, 2024 Memorandum and on the record on May 13, 2024, Defendant Joseph Cammarata’s motions (ECF No. 134, 137) are DENIED”
“ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the May 16, 2024 Memorandum and on the record on May 13, 2024, the Government’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 138) is DENIED as MOOT.”
Put Judge Sheridan's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Sheridan actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Sheridan's own signed orders and cites them.