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

Ancer L. Haggerty

United States District Court for the District of Oregon district Retired 2014 · served 1994–2014 Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 3 signed orders read

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

How Judge Haggerty decides

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

Procedural preferences

At summary judgment he views the facts and draws inferences most favorably to the non-movant and decides on the actual evidence -- granting for the defense where undisputed facts establish probable cause, denying where the record (e.g. video) shows a genuine dispute.

“On summary judgment, the court must view the facts and draw inferences in the manner most favorable to the non-moving party.”

Cautions

On Oregon intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims he enforces the demanding 'socially intolerable conduct' threshold; rude or offensive but isolated remarks are not enough to survive summary judgment.

“one reference to plaintiff being called a ‘fucking bitch,’ and one incident of physical intimidation, though rude and unpleasant, fails to amount to socially intolerable behavior sufficient for establishing an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.”

Signed rulings

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

Lemens v. City of Pendleton
3:04-cv-01702-HA · 2005-05-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #11) is GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant Bethpage's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #20) is DENIED as moot.”

Martinez v. Mary's Woods at Marylhurst, Inc.
3:05-cv-00437-HA · 2006-05-16
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons provided, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [14] is granted in its entirety.”

Gaines v. Nordstrom, Inc.
3:06-cv-01612-HA · 2007-10-10
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for summary judgment [12] is DENIED.”

Eldridge v. Pollin Hotels II, LLC (dba Sheraton Portland Airport Hotel)
3:04-cv-01360 · 2006-08-02
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Therefore, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [44] is DENIED.”

Treat, Inc. v. Dessert Beauty, Inc.
3:05-cv-00923 · 2006-09-28
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff Treat's Motion To Strike the Amended Declaration of Sujata Chaudhri [56] is denied;”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“defendant DBI's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss [36] is granted in part and denied in part as follows: DBI's request for summary judgment on Treat's trademark infringement on the issues of likelihood of confusion and fair use is denied; DBI's request for summary judgment on its fraud counterclaim is denied; DBI's motion to dismiss Treat's trade dress claim is granted with prejudice; DBI's alternative motion for summary judgment on Treat's trade dress claim is denied as moot;”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“DBI's motion to dismiss Treat's trade dress claim is granted with prejudice”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“plaintiff Treat's Motion for Summary Judgment [61] is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Treat's request for summary judgment on its trademark infringement claim is denied and Treat's request for summary judgment on DBI's counterclaim for cancellation on the grounds that the mark is generic or descriptive is granted;”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Treat's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint [30] is granted.”

Malmquist, D.M.D. v. OMS National Insurance Company
3:09-cv-01309 · 2011-01-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“OMS National Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [27] is granted as to plaintiffs' Washington Consumer Protection Act claim and denied as to plaintiffs' remaining claims.”

Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [48] is denied and plaintiffs' Motion to Strike [49] is denied.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Denied
Bradford v. Clackamas County
3:08-cv-00644 · 2010-07-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [86] is DENIED with respect to defendant Gregory Senior and GRANTED with respect to defendants Gary Bergerson, Mark Moore, and Robert Dunkle.”

Huntsinger v. The Shaw Group, Inc.
3:04-cv-00787 · 2006-03-07
Motion for attorney fees (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Unum's Motion for Attorney Fees [144] is denied.”

Fine v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.
3:04-cv-01241 · 2007-05-03
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [67] has been evaluated and is determined to be without merit. That Motion is denied.”

Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's alternative request for remand of plaintiff's remaining state law claim is also denied.”

Bill of costs (defendant) Denied

“Because there is no basis for viewing plaintiff's action as frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, defendants' proposed Bill of Costs [65] is denied.”

Bark v. Larsen (Mount Hood National Forest)
3:06-cv-01119 · 2007-10-05
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [35] is DENIED, defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [26] is GRANTED, and plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [26] is GRANTED”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is DENIED.”

Aloha Dog and Cat Hospital, P.C. v. Standard Retirement Services, Inc.
3:08-cv-00927 · 2010-12-16
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' summary judgment motion [35] is granted as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim and denied as to the breach of contract claim.”

Taylor v. Wilhelm
3:07-cv-00175 · 2008-01-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The court correctly construed defendants' motion [17] as such and, correctly recommended granting that motion, dismissing plaintiff's claims without prejudice.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The 15-case sample, composed mainly of matters filed from 2007 through 2012, includes employment and other civil-rights disputes, product liability, insurance and interpleader, contract, patent and trademark, and criminal cases. Reported durations measure the life of each case, not the time taken to decide a motion.

A historical record

Judge Haggerty 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.