Stephanie Lou Haines
How Judge Haines decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a 12(b)(6) timeliness defense she stays strictly within the four corners of the complaint and indisputably authentic documents: an EEOC right-to-sue limitations defense fails where the record (emails sent only to opposing counsel) cannot establish the plaintiff's date of RECEIPT, which is what starts the 90-day clock.
“the August 30 date of issuance set forth in the three EEOC dismissal and notice of rights forms is insufficient in and of itself to start the 90-day clock, as it is the date of receipt that controls”
Procedural preferences
She uses Rule 12(f) sparingly and surgically: she strikes only narrowly objectionable matter (a single loaded term, an unavailable damages category) and leaves pattern-or-practice and retaliation allegations intact as relevant to proving discrimination, granting leave to amend rather than gutting the pleading.
“Defendant's motion to strike hereby is granted only as to the use in Plaintiffs' complaint of the term 'whistleblower(s),' and as to Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages under the Rehabilitation Act. In all other respects, Defendant's motion to strike hereby is denied”
Cautions
On a partial motion to dismiss she will end a specific claim outright -- Count III was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE -- so a defendant's targeted partial MTD can permanently knock out a count even while the rest of the case proceeds.
“Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED with prejudice”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) hereby is denied”
“Defendant's motion to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) hereby is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion to strike hereby is granted only as to the use in Plaintiffs' complaint of the term 'whistleblower(s),' and as to Plaintiffs' request for punitive damages under the Rehabilitation Act. In all other respects, Defendant's motion to strike hereby is denied”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part ... The Court enters Declaratory Judgment in favor of Princeton. Princeton is not required to defend or indemnify Laurel in the Underlying Litigation.”
“Defendant Laurel's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ... The Court enters Declaratory Judgment in part as to MedPro. It is not required to indemnify Laurel but is liable to defend Laurel as to certain claims.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED with prejudice”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) [Doc. 34] filed by Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., hereby is granted; and, IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that this case hereby is dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the partial motion to dismiss filed by Defendants M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust N.A. [Doc. 53] hereby is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent Defendant Wilmington Trust N.A. seeks dismissal from this suit, the motion is granted and Wilmington Trust N.A. hereby is dismissed as a Defendant in this action. In all other respects, M&T Bank's partial motion to dismiss is denied”
“IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Joseph A. Varacallo, C Warehouse LLC, and Developac, Inc. [Doc. 56], hereby is denied”
“IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the partial motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Frank A. Villella [Doc. 58] hereby is denied”
“IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Clearfield County Industrial Development Authority [Doc. 61] hereby is denied”
“the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion for Order to Show Cause and Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order at ECF No. 2.”
“Based on the above, Odiase's Motion to Compel (ECF 46) is DENIED.”
“The search of Mr. Waulk's person, the buccal swab, and the search of the cell phone did not violate Mr. Waulk's Fourth Amendment right. Accordingly, his Motion to Suppress Evidence (ECF No. 221) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motions to suppress wiretap evidence [Doc. 992] and motion to suppress (search warrant for residence) [Doc. 994] have been denied, and as more fully stated in said Opinion.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's emergency motion to reconsider detention in light of the reemergence of COVID-19 in the Allegheny County Jail [Doc. 193] hereby is denied.”
“Upon the Court having found Defendant State Farm did not establish federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court (ECF No. 6) will be GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed Johnstown Division matters include employment discrimination, civil rights, product liability, insurance and employee-benefit disputes, consumer-credit cases, bankruptcy appeals, and a recent increase in immigration-detention habeas petitions. Some older cases were reassigned to Haines after she joined the court in 2019.
Put Judge Haines's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Haines actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Haines's own signed orders and cites them.