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

Robert James Cindrich

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania district Retired 2004 · served 1994–2004 Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 19 signed orders read

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

Signed rulings

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

Kennedy v. Runyon
· 1996-07-22
Summary judgment (Postmaster General and U.S. Postal Service) Granted

“Accordingly, the defendants’ motion will be granted.”

United States v. Nesser
· 1996-08-06
Motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial (James Nesser) Denied

“For the reasons stated below, Nesser’s motion for judgment of acquittal will be denied.”

Motion to enforce plea agreement (James Nesser) Denied

“the court at the end of the hearing orally denied the motion for enforcement of a plea agreement.”

United States v. Nesser
· 1996-08-06
Motion for release pending sentence (James Nesser) Denied

“For the reasons stated below, Nesser’s motion for bail or release pending sentence will be denied.”

Callahan v. A.E v. Inc.
· 1996-08-12
Motion to compel discovery (Beer distributors) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses to Document Requests pursuant to Federal- Rule of Civil Procedure No. 37(a)(2)(A), Doe. No. 141, is GRANTED, with the exception of transcripts sought under request number 31 and not covered by other document requests.”

Parks v. United States
· 1996-10-17
Summary judgment (The Parks) Denied

“plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doe. No. 9, is DENIED.”

Barrett v. Vojtas
· 1998-09-30
Motion for protective order (John J. Vojtas) Denied

“Vojtas’s Motions for Protective Order Relating to Psychotherapy *182Records (Doc. Nos. 32 and 47) are both DENIED.”

Motion for protective order (John J. Vojtas) Denied
Williams v. City of Pittsburgh
· 1998-12-29
Motion for reconsideration (Dorothy Wimbs) Denied

“Wimbs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum Order Dated November 20,1998 etc., Doc. No. 132, is DENIED in its entirety.”

United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp.
· 2000-09-28
Motion for partial summary judgment (United States) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability on Reported Violations, Doe. No. 116, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART”

Motion for partial summary judgment (United States) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability on Unreported Violations, Doc. No. 122, is DENIED.”

Motion for partial summary judgment (United States) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Interference Claims, Doc. No. 127, is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (Allegheny Ludlum Corporation) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 104, is DENIED.”

Motion to dismiss and cross motion for summary judgment (Allegheny Ludlum Corporation) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; Response in Opposition to the Motions of the United States and Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 136, is DENIED in its entirety.”

Motions to strike (Allegheny Ludlum Corporation) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Declaration of Lee Okster, Doe. No. 134, is DENIED.”

Motions to strike (Allegheny Ludlum Corporation) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Declaration of Gary Amendola, Doc. No. 135, is DENIED.”

Motions to strike (United States) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Portions of the Affidavits of Deborah Calderazzo, Doc. No. 159, is DENIED.”

Motions to strike (United States) Denied

“Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Portions of the Affidavits of Deborah Calderazzo, Doc. No. 160, is DENIED.”

Motions to strike (Allegheny Ludlum Corporation) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion to Strike Second Amendola Declaration, Doc. No. 161, is DENIED.”

Motions to strike (Allegheny Ludlum Corporation) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion to Strike Ok-ster’s Third Declaration, Doc. No. 162, is DENIED.”

Motion for in camera review (United States) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited In Camera Review of Redacted Materials in the Eckstein Documents, Doc. No. 129, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”

Smith v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.
· 2001-11-02
Summary judgment (Scripto-Tokai defendants) Denied

“defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 50, is DENIED.”

Motion to amend complaint (Smith plaintiffs) Granted in part

“Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint, Doc. No. 54, is GRANTED in part as to Count III, which is hereby reinstated, and DENIED in part as to Count II.”

Motions to strike (Scripto-Tokai defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Supplemental Pretrial Statement, Doc. No. 67, is DENIED.”

Smith v. Scripto-Tokai Corp.
· 2001-12-28
Motion for reconsideration (Scripto-Tokai defendants) Denied

“defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. No. 69, is DENIED.”

Aufdencamp v. Irene Stacy Community Mental Health Center
· 2002-11-25
Summary judgment (Irene Stacy Community Mental Health Center) Granted

“defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED.”

Murdock v. Unum Provident Corp.
· 2002-12-06
Summary judgment (Unum Provident defendants) Denied

“defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17) is hereby DENIED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

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

A historical record

Judge Cindrich 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.