Legal Definitions - judge-shopping

Judge-shopping refers to a strategic legal maneuver where a party files multiple identical or very similar lawsuits in the same court system, particularly in a jurisdiction with several judges, with the specific intent of having one of these cases assigned to a judge they believe will be more sympathetic or favorable to their arguments. Once a perceived "favorable" judge is assigned to one of the cases, the party then voluntarily dismisses the other identical lawsuits. This practice aims to manipulate the typically random assignment of cases to judges.

• Example 1: Corporate Patent Dispute

  A large technology company is being sued for patent infringement. The company's legal team knows that some judges in the federal district court are generally more inclined to rule in favor of patent holders, while others are known for being skeptical of broad patent claims. To increase their chances of a favorable outcome, the company files three separate, but identical, lawsuits challenging the validity of the patent in question. Their hope is that one of these three cases will be randomly assigned to a judge with a history of ruling in favor of patent challengers. Once such an assignment occurs for one of the cases, they would then dismiss the other two identical lawsuits, proceeding only with the case before the judge they perceive as favorable.

• Example 2: Environmental Regulation Challenge

  An environmental activist group strongly opposes a new permit issued by a state agency for a large development project, believing the permit was unlawfully granted. In a judicial district with multiple administrative law judges, some of whom are known for rigorous scrutiny of agency procedures and others for deference to agency decisions, the group files two separate, but identical, petitions challenging the permit. Their strategy is to increase the chances of one of these petitions being assigned to a judge with a track record of closely examining administrative processes. If one petition lands with such a judge, they would withdraw the other, focusing their efforts on the case before the preferred judge.

• Example 3: Civil Rights Ordinance Challenge

  A civil liberties organization wants to challenge a newly enacted city ordinance that restricts public demonstrations, believing it violates constitutional rights. In a large metropolitan court system with many judges, some of whom are known for broad interpretations of free speech rights and others for prioritizing public order, the organization files three separate lawsuits, each asserting the same constitutional challenge against the ordinance. Their goal is to have one of these cases assigned to a judge with a strong history of upholding free speech protections. Upon securing such an assignment for one of the cases, they would then voluntarily dismiss the other two identical lawsuits, concentrating their legal resources on the case before the judge they believe is most likely to rule in their favor.