Raymond L. Acosta
Judge Acosta no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Acosta decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He required a factual basis for conspiracy allegations rather than general assertions of cooperation between private and public actors.
“some factual basis supporting the existence of a conspiracy must be pled when a conspiracy is alleged in a civil rights case.”
He enforced a forum-selection clause when the party had freely accepted the contractual allocation of forum risk.
“plaintiff is required to abide by the terms of a contractual obligation it freely and voluntarily undertook and assume the foreseeable consequences of its decision.”
Procedural preferences
He expected summary-judgment responses to identify specific supporting pages or paragraphs rather than cite exhibits generally.
“over ninety-eight percent (98%) of plaintiffs’ answers fail to comply with the Local Rule.”
He enforced contractual arbitration where a broad grievance clause covered the claimed breach.
“plaintiffs claim for damages for the Union’s alleged breach of the no-strike provision must be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the CBA.”
Cautions
He would not toll a limitations period merely because counsel obtained an expert report after the underlying events were already known.
“The only explanation proffered for the delay in asserting the additional allegations was the receipt of an expert report which we find insufficient.”
He enforced filing deadlines where exhibits were submitted after the opposition rather than with the statement of facts.
“The exhibits were physically filed nine (9) days after her opposition.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, and in view of the above, we hereby GRANT codefendant PADILLA’s motion to dismiss (docket No. 178) for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. Partial Judgment to issue.”
“For the reasons set forth herein and in the Court’s Omnibus Order No. 6 issued on September 30, 2005, defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (docket Nos. 96 and 110) and Motion for Judgment (docket No. 159) are hereby GRANTED.”
“In view of the above, defendants’ motion to dismiss, docket No. 9, filed on February 12, 2004, is GRANTED.”
“Based on the evidence presented at trial we find that the award for the minor’s parents was unreasonably low and grossly inadequate and the Motion Requesting Partial New Trial as to the Issue of Damages. .. (docket No. Ill) 3 is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet the burden of establishing that this Court has jurisdiction over defendant Radisson Cable Beach Resort of Nassau, Bahamas, and defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (docket No. 13) is hereby GRANTED.”
“Having reviewed the pleadings and case-law, it is clear that plaintiffs compensatory damages claim was not properly exhausted. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (docket No. 18, filed on May 29, 2001) is hereby GRANTED.”
“Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (docket No. 22) 4 is DENIED and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (docket No. 25) 5 is GRANTED.”
The court dismissed a labor dispute after concluding that the collective-bargaining agreement required arbitration of the claimed no-strike breach.
“After careful consideration of the arguments asserted in the pleadings, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to re-sentence for the reasons set forth below.”
“Based on the evidence presented at trial, we are convinced that the one million dollar award assessed against the COMMONWEALTH and the DOE is adequately supported and will not be disturbed. Accordingly, defendants’ Motion (docket No. 149) 9 is DENIED.”
“Based on the foregoing, the HOSPITAL’S Motion for Summary Judgment (docket No. 25) 4 is GRANTED and the EMTALA claims asserted in the complaint filed in this case are hereby DISMISSED as untimely.”
“Because plaintiffs complaint fails to adduce a cause of action under VARA, it must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss (docket No. 13) is hereby GRANTED and this action is hereby DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 60 located assigned cases were all terminated. Employment civil-rights, foreclosure, personal-liability, other civil-rights, and contract matters made up most of this historical group; the median filing-to-termination duration was 1,165 days. This is not a career-wide caseload measure.
A historical record
Judge Acosta 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.