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

Pamela Ann Barker

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio district Appointed by Donald Trump (Republican) 29 signed orders read

How Judge Barker decides

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

What persuades

On a design-defect theory she requires plausible causation tied to THIS plaintiff: failure to allege the specific thief was targeting the unprotected vehicle (or could not have stolen a protected one) defeats but-for causation.

“dismissal is warranted for the additional reason that Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the design of the Kia Sportage involved in the August 2022 collision was a 'but for' or 'cause-in-fact' of her injuries.”

On removal she keeps mandatory-jurisdiction (damages) claims and applies the Grand Trunk discretionary factors to declaratory claims rather than remanding the whole case.

“Because this Court must retain jurisdiction over at least part of E.P.'s Complaint, this factor weighs in favor of retaining jurisdiction over E.P.'s Declaratory Judgment claim as well.”

Procedural preferences

Reconsideration is reserved for clear error of law, new evidence, intervening law, or manifest injustice -- not relitigation; she declined to revisit a Rule 9(b)/OCSPA dismissal absent any of these.

“the Detricks have not shown a clear error of law, presented new evidence, identified an intervening change in controlling law, or established that reconsideration prevents a manifest injustice.”

Cautions

Will impose a pre-filing (vexatious-litigant) injunction and certify an appeal as not in good faith against a repeat pro se filer relitigating the same dispute.

“Plaintiff is enjoined from filing any new actions without first seeking and obtaining leave to proceed as set forth in this Memorandum of Opinion and Order.”

Signed rulings

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

Fox v. Kia America, Inc.
· 2024-03-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED.”

Motion for judicial notice (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant's Motion for Judicial Notice (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED to the limited extent set forth herein.”

Lott v. Playhouse Square Hotel, LLC
· 2021-08-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED.”

Buntura v. Ford Motor Company
· 2025-09-09
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 14) is granted and this case is dismissed with prejudice.”

Equity Planning Corporation v. Westfield Insurance Company
· 2020-10-06
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, and for all the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED.”

Detrick v. KCS International Inc.
· 2025-06-17
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' Motion (Doc. No. 63) is DENIED.”

Crew v. County of Medina
1:25-cv-01596 · 2026-03-03
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, this Court grants Defendant's Motion.”

McDonald v. Medina City Board of Education
1:19-cv-00334 · 2020-04-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice.”

United States v. Cuthbertson
1:21-cr-00486 · 2021-07-12
Motion to stay pending appeal (defendant) Denied

“For all the reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings pending Appeal (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED.”

West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Osmic
1:21-cv-00593 · 2024-08-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, and for all of the reasons set forth above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Right to a Jury Trial (Doc. No. 105) is DENIED.”

BVG Properties, LLC v. City of Cleveland
1:25-cv-00430 · 2025-08-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as follows. Counts Two through Five are dismissed. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Counts One, Six, Seven, and Eight, and accordingly, those counts are dismissed without prejudice.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED AS MOOT.”

M6 Marketing, LLC v. McQuate
5:24-cv-00896 · 2025-01-24
Default judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Therefore, the Court hereby VACATES the Entry of Default against Defendant Kirkwood (Doc. No. 12) and DENIES the Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Kirkwood (Doc. No. 13.)”

International Watchman, Inc. v. Albany Watch Co., LLC
1:20-cv-02413 · 2021-06-16
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff International Watchman, Inc.'s Renewed Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The oldest-first sample covers twelve terminated cases filed from 2014 through 2017 and closed from 2019 through 2021. It includes habeas, securities, civil-rights, ERISA, False Claims Act, contract, and criminal matters. Several cases predate Barker's 2019 commission and reached her by reassignment, so the mix reflects inherited as well as newly filed work.

Put Judge Barker's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Barker actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Barker's own signed orders and cites them.