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

Donetta Wypiski Ambrose

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania district Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 18 signed orders read

Signed rulings

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

Shaffer v. South State Machinery, Inc.
· 1998-01-21
Motions to dismiss (Devlieg-Bullard, Inc.) Granted

“After careful consideration, and for the - reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.”

Donaldson v. Informatica Corp.
· 2011-05-31
Summary judgment (Informatica Corporation) Granted

“Defendant Informática Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 47) is granted.”

Motion to strike exhibits (Informatica Corporation) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits/Charts to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 59) is denied as moot.”

Ryder v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
· 1995-02-06
Summary judgment (Westinghouse Electric Corporation) Denied

“For the following reasons, the Motion will be denied.”

Skerski v. Time Warner Cable Co.
· 2000-01-27
Summary judgment (Time Warner Cable Company) Granted

“the Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 11) is GRANTED.”

Hicks v. Tech Industries
· 2007-05-03
Summary judgment (Vanton Hicks) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 27) is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (Tech Industries) Granted in part

“Defendant’s Motion is DENIED in all other respects.”

Cindrich v. Fisher
· 2007-05-31
Summary judgment (Defendants) Granted in part

“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 39) is granted in part and denied in part”

UPMC, Braddock v. Teamsters Local 250
· 1998-10-22
Summary judgment (Teamsters Local 250) Granted in part

“the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 3) is granted in part and denied in part.”

Sewickley Valley Hospital v. Leavitt
· 2008-06-19
Summary judgment (Plaintiff hospitals) Denied

“plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 16) is denied.”

Summary judgment (Secretary of Health and Human Services) Granted

“defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 20) is granted.”

El-Daour v. Chertoff
· 2005-08-26
Motions to dismiss (Federal defendants) Granted in part

“the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 15) is denied in part and granted in part.”

Braden v. County of Washington
· 2010-09-02
Summary judgment (County of Washington) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion for summary Judgment is granted.”

Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless
· 2007-12-11
Motions to dismiss (Verizon Wireless) Denied

“the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. [14]) is DENIED.”

Hampton v. Geico Insurance
· 2010-12-13
Summary judgment (GEICO Insurance Company) Granted

“the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant GEICO Insurance Company (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The surviving 20-case metadata cohort consists entirely of terminated matters filed from November 1993 through January 1994. It is an archival slice rather than a career-wide caseload estimate.

Put Judge Ambrose's record to work

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

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