Dominic W. Lanza
How Judge Lanza rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lanza
Dominic William Lanza is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Lanza received a commission on September 10, 2018.
Judge Lanza's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lanza, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
In ERISA cases, file the joint Rule 26(f) case management report within four weeks of the order.
“The parties are directed to meet, confer, and develop a Rule 26(f) Joint Case 22 Management Report, which must be filed within 4 weeks of the date of this order.”
Filing
For ERISA briefing, the Rule 26(f) report must propose page limits and should account for the court’s bar on a separate statement of facts.
“Proposed page limits for Plaintiff(s)’ opening brief, Defendant(s)’ response 20 brief, and Plaintiff(s)’ reply brief. (The parties should note that the Court 21 does not permit the filing of a separate statement of facts.);”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
How Judge Lanza decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Protective of contract-FORMATION when a consumer's assent to a later-added arbitration clause is genuinely disputed: declines to 'robotically' enforce delegation/AAA-rules clauses without first deciding whether a valid agreement was formed under state law.
“when, as in this case, there is a legitimate dispute about whether the party opposing arbitration assented to the modification of a contract to add an arbitration clause, it would be improper for a court to robotically compel arbitration based on delegation principles without conducting any independent analysis of the contract-modification issue.”
Procedural preferences
In an FCRA summary-judgment case, he held that the plaintiff’s failure to respond did not by itself justify granting Equifax’s motion, while explaining that the failure still had consequences under Rule 56.
“Although Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Equifax’s motion does not mean the motion may be treated as unopposed and summarily granted on that basis, that failure still carries significant consequences.”
In Espinoza v. Trans Union, Lanza read the report’s past-tense “was past due” notation with its closed-account and zero-balance entries and found it neither inaccurate nor misleading to a reasonable reader.
“By including the word ‘was’ in the Pay Status line immediately before the phrase ‘past due date,’ Trans Union clearly denoted that the current status of the account was ‘Paid, Closed’ ... Thus, Plaintiff’s credit report was ‘neither inaccurate nor misleading to a reasonable reader.’”
Cautions
In a tribal-immunity case, he dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) after the plaintiff failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and did not reach the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.
“Because Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction over her complaint, the complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) without consideration of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal arguments.”
A prior state action declared null from inception does not start the federal removal clocks; the later valid complaint is treated as the initial pleading and commencement of the action.
“Because the First Action was ‘null and void’ from inception as a matter of Arizona law, such that it has ceased to exist and has no effect, it follows that the complaint filed by the City in the First Action cannot qualify as the relevant ‘initial pleading’”
He warned that filing three separate reconsideration motions about one order circumvented the local page limit; keep a single reconsideration request within the rule.
“By filing three separate motions (which collectively exceed 17 pages) for reconsideration of one order, Plaintiff has attempted an end-run around the Local Rules.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that Trans Union’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) is granted. Counts Three and Four of the FAC are dismissed without leave to amend and Trans Union is dismissed as a Defendant.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Equifax’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 57) is granted. Because this ruling disposes of all remaining claims in this action, the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) is granted.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 36) is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions (Doc. 59) is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Couche-Tard’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 47) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for remand (Doc. 12) is denied.”
The court did not rule on Desert Financial's motion to compel arbitration. It ordered supplemental briefing on the unresolved Arizona contract-modification question of whether notice through an agreed channel, without the consumer's actual knowledge, validly adds an arbitration clause, refusing to 'robotically compel arbitration' where assent to the modification was genuinely disputed.
“Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 12) is granted.”
“Plaintiff's motions for entry of default (Docs. 9, 10) are denied.”
“‘emergency motion to stay foreclosure sale and remove notice’ (Doc. 12) is denied.”
“‘emergency motion for expedited consideration’ (Doc. 13) is granted insofar as this order resolved his other motion on an expedited basis.”
“Magellan's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 55) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Magellan's motion to exclude the expert testimony of Michael Stokes (Doc. 56) is denied.”
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 12 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 12 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Arizona, not for Judge Lanza: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 135 | 2.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,001 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 335 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,278 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,126 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,181 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,857 | 20.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,128 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,842 | 9.6 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Lanza with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lanza, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lanza's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace