Theresa Lazar Springmann
How Judge Springmann rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Springmann
Theresa Lazar Springmann is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Springmann received a commission on June 24, 2003. Judge Springmann assumed senior status on January 23, 2020.
Judge Springmann's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Springmann, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
File motions in limine with supporting authorities by the final pretrial conference.
“Motions in limine must be filed in writing with supporting authorities by the time of the Final Pretrial Conference.”
Motions
Prefer a single motion in limine encompassing requests to exclude trial evidence.
“The Court prefers that all requests for the exclusion of evidence at trial be included in a single motion in limine.”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Springmann decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Odier v. Hoffmann School of Martial Arts, Springmann treated the school's deferred-payment agreement as credit under the Truth in Lending Act and granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment on that claim.
“the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED (DE 35).”
In the reviewed Social Security fee order, Springmann began with the contingency agreement and found the requested amount reasonable in light of the successful result, contingent risk, effective hourly rate, and absence of undue delay or overreaching, while requiring refund of the earlier fee-shifting award.
“For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees Under 42 U.S.C. 406(b) [ECF No. 47]”
In the reviewed indenture-trustee dispute, she treated the parties' contract as the source of the trustee's duties and applied the economic-loss doctrine where the alleged tort injury duplicated the contractual loss.
“Consequently, the economic loss doctrine provided an independent basis to dismiss the Plaintiffs' tort claims.”
In the reviewed pension-benefits dispute, she ordered direct payment rather than remand after resolving the domestic-relations order's qualification as a legal question and finding no further issue for the trustees to consider.
“There is nothing further for the Trustees to consider on remand, and the Court will direct the Fund to remit to the Plaintiff the segregated amounts owed to her.”
In three related workplace-harassment cases, the court assessed each plaintiff’s alleged experience separately at the pleading stage and denied the employer’s requests to dismiss the amended complaints.
“complaints have no bearing on whether the Plaintiff has stated a claim in this case.”
Procedural preferences
In Kirkwood v. DeLong, Springmann granted the defendants' summary judgment motions in part but let excessive-force and search claims proceed where disputed facts remained.
“The Fort Wayne Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 27] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
In Marshall v. Town of Merrillville, Springmann allowed amendment to recharacterize a claim based on existing facts but rejected a new claim that would prejudice a defendant that had already won summary judgment.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint [EOF No. 89]”
In Wolfe v. State of Indiana, Springmann treated a self-represented filing by its substance as a reconsideration request and denied it because Wolfe identified no overlooked controlling law or reason for failing to serve the defendants.
“Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the relief requested in the Plaintiff’s Denial of Order [ECF No. 6].”
At prisoner screening, she allowed excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims to proceed where a compliant detainee alleged an officer slammed his head into concrete without provocation while another officer watched.
“GRANTS Terrell K. Brown leave to proceed against Officer Lonkar in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for subjecting him to one incident of excessive force”
In the reviewed contract summary-judgment ruling, she required concrete evidence identifying which repairs missed the cure period; a managing partner's general statement did not create a trial issue when it failed to identify any particular late repair.
“Given that the Plaintiff signed an acknowledgement that repairs were conducted on April 1, 2015, and fails to identify any repairs that were not completed by that date, Kenney's vague testimony as to the timing of the repairs is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact”
In the reviewed jail-medical-care case, she required evidence connecting the challenged staffing or emergency protocol to a substantial risk and the injury; conclusory assertions did not sustain a municipal-policy claim.
“The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that an alternative reporting system or a different emergency services protocol was necessary to avoid deliberate indifference to the inmates' serious medical conditions, or would have changed the outcome of Vaught's treatment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 33) is DENIED, and the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED (DE 35).”
“the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED (DE 35).”
“The Fort Wayne Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 27] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendant Robert Hatfield's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 29] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“the Fort Wayne Defendants' Motion to Strike [DE 56] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“the Defendant's Motion to Exclude Time [DE 31] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“the Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Summary judgment is GRANTED to Defendant City of Hammond on all claims asserted against it; ... summary judgment is DENIED as to Derrick Gray's and Yolanda Gray's claims of excessive force and claims of unreasonable search and seizure”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint [EOF No. 89]”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby GRANTS the Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees Under 42 U.S.C. 406(b) [ECF No. 47]”
“Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the relief requested in the Plaintiff’s Denial of Order [ECF No. 6].”
At screening, the court allowed a pretrial detainee to proceed on excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims where he alleged that an officer slammed his head into concrete after he had complied and another officer watched. The jail and unrelated claims were dismissed. Verbatim disposition: 'GRANTS Terrell K. Brown leave to proceed against Officer Lonkar in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for subjecting him to one incident of excessive force' and 'GRANTS Terrell K. Brown leave to proceed against Officer Greenee in his individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for failing to intervene.'
“For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim [ECF No. 38] is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 35], and DENIES the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 39].”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART the QCC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 69] and GRANTS IN PART the Whitley County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 71]. The Court DENIES the Motions with respect to all state-law claims, RELINQUISHES supplemental jurisdiction over these state-law claims, and REMANDS the case to the Huntington Superior Court.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Fund's Motion to Transfer Case [ECF No. 47], GRANTS the Fund's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 42] the Plaintiff's state law conversion claim, and DENIES the Fund's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record [ECF No. 7].”
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 22 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 20 |
| Mar 2023 | 11 | 22 |
| Sep 2022 | 10 | 21 |
| Mar 2022 | 22 | 29 |
| Sep 2021 | 41 | 37 |
| Mar 2021 | 67 | 31 |
| Sep 2020 | 86 | 25 |
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 Northern District of Indiana, not for Judge Springmann: 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 | 1,338 | 8.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 68 | 2.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 958 | 7.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 302 | 14.5 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 43.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,338 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,336 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,248 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,434 | 12.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,258 | 12.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,408 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,576 | 13.8 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 Springmann with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Springmann, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Springmann's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace