Lurana S. Snow
How Judge Snow rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Snow
Lurana S. Snow has served as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of Florida since 1986. She earned a law degree from Harvard Law School and has handled matters in the Key West and Fort Lauderdale areas. Her work includes recommendations on cases referred by district judges.
Judge Snow's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Snow's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Snow decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On the reviewed prevailing-party fee request, she applied the lodestar method, assessed the requested rates and hours independently, and recommended the full amount when it was supported and unopposed.
“The undersigned further finds, based on a review of the billing statements and the record in this cause, that 366.2 hours is a reasonable amount of time to have spent on the case. Therefore, the requested fee award of $101,927.24 should be granted.”
In the reviewed Social Security appeals, she examined each stage of the administrative analysis and recommended remand when findings on impairment severity, treating-source evidence, or vocational testimony lacked adequate support.
“RECOMMENDED that the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 11) be GRANTED, in part, in that the case should be remanded to the Commissioner”
Procedural preferences
In GEICO General Insurance Co. v. Hampel, Snow recommended denying Rule 11 fees because the movant had not separately served its motion at least 21 days before filing it, as the safe-harbor rule required.
“Rule 11 requires that the motion itself be served on the plaintiff, and failure to comply with that requirement is fatal.”
In TEC Serv, LLC v. Crabb, Snow recommended $6,927.44 in taxable costs after excluding items outside the statutory categories and setting post-judgment interest from the merits judgment.
“the total of taxable costs is $6,927.44 ($350.00 + $385.00 + $5,871.60 + $320.84).”
Cautions
In Costas v. Astrue, she recommended denying the claimant’s summary-judgment motion and granting the Commissioner’s, which would affirm the denial of benefits.
“For these reasons, Judge Snow recommends that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 15] be denied and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 18] be granted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Report and Recommendation ... recommends that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 15] be denied”
“ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ... The Report and Recommendation [DE 20] of United States Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow, dated April 4, 2007 is ADOPTED”
“RECOMMENDED that the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 11) be GRANTED, in part, in that the case should be remanded to the Commissioner for a determination of: (1) whether the plaintiff's impairments ... were ‘severe’ at step two ...; (2) whether ... the opinion of the plaintiff's treating physician should be given less than considerable weight ...; (3) whether ... jobs exist in the national economy which the plaintiff can perform.”
“RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 16) be DENIED.”
“RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED, and that the defendants recover costs of $1,114.50, comprising $99.15 for copying costs and $1,015.35 for deposition transcripts, plus interest at the rate of 0.47% from July 31, 2009.”
“RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Attorney's Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses and Costs (ECF No. 82) be GRANTED, and that the Plaintiff be awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $101,927.24, litigation expenses in the amount of $4,650.00 and costs in the amount of $425.00.”
“RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Nontaxable Expenses and Costs Against Defendants (ECF No. 93) and Bill of Costs (ECF No. 94) be GRANTED, and that the Plaintiff be awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $71,461.50 and costs in the amount of $634.81.”
“RECOMMENDED that Defendant Noreen Hampel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees (DE 13) be DENIED, and that the Court decline to award attorney's fees to the plaintiff for the defense of the motion.”
“1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow, dated June 23, 2010 [DE 23] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Plaintiff Scott W. Backhus's Motion to Amend Judgment against Defendants for Failure to Pay Settlement Payment [DE 16] is hereby GRANTED.”
“RECOMMENDED that Third Party Defendants' John Toscano and Marilyn Toscano's Motion for an Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Accounting Fees Incurred at the Trial Level (ECF No. 306) ... and ... Verified Motion to Tax Costs (ECF No. 247) be GRANTED, in part, and that the Third Party Defendants be awarded $250,000.00 for attorneys' fees and accounting expenses and $6,927.44 in taxable costs.”
“RECOMMENDED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be DENIED, and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED.”
“RECOMMENDED that the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31) be DENIED and the Commissioner's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27) be GRANTED.”
“ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 21) be GRANTED, and the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 19) be DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendant The Results Companies, LLC's Omnibus Motion [DE 34] is hereby GRANTED with regard to Part (2), Defendant's motion for dismissal without prejudice of the claims brought by seventy-three (73) of the remaining plaintiffs in this case ... b. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the claims of those 73 plaintiffs.”
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, not for Judge Snow: 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 | 8,196 | 3.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 848 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,287 | 3.5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 16 | 10.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 45 | 17.1 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 8,196 | 3.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,755 | 3.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 20,408 | 0 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,287 | 3.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 8,536 | 3.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,657 | 3.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 9,471 | 3.7 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 Snow with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Snow, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Snow's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace