Krissa M. Lanham
How Judge Lanham rules, drawn from 36 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lanham
Krissa Marie Lanham is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Lanham received a commission on June 3, 2024.
Judge Lanham's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lanham, 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
Contacting chambers
Email the proposed case management order in Word format to chambers when filing the Rule 26(f) report.
“The proposed Case Management Order must also be emailed in Word 27 format to [email protected].”
Filing
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.”
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 Lanham decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In one coverage dispute, the court denied reconsideration based on evidence and law available before summary judgment. A party seeking reconsideration should identify material that genuinely could not have been presented earlier.
“USAA cannot obtain reconsideration based on evidence available earlier that it chose not to obtain, nor on ‘new’ law examined in the very authority it discussed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 80) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of State Farm and close this case.”
“The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48), and the Motion is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. If plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint consistent with the limited leave to amend granted in this order, they must do so no later than December 8, 2025.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Strike (Doc. 22) is DENIED.”
“Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' intrusion-upon-seclusion claim is dismissed without leave to amend and their other claims may proceed.”
“IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. Defendant Guglielmo & Associates PLLC is DISMISSED.”
“IT IS ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Disclose Confidential Source File and the Identity of the Confidential Source (Doc. 148).”
“IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 48) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendant and close this case.”
“IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. The state-law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and defendants Monroe Walker II and Faith Karatas are DISMISSED.”
“IT IS ORDERED Midwestern's motion to dismiss (Doc. 58) is GRANTED. The claim against Midwestern is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and Midwestern is DISMISSED as a defendant.”
“IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) is GRANTED IN PART. The ADA claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The remainder of the motion is still pending, to be resolved if jurisdiction is retained.”
“IT IS ORDERED Transdev's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 44) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant and close this case.”
“IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 28) is GRANTED IN PART and DEFERRED IN PART.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 67) is GRANTED IN PART and DEFERRED IN PART.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Amend (Doc. 30) 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
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 Lanham: 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 Lanham with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lanham, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lanham's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace