Holly Lou Teeter
How Judge Teeter rules, drawn from 41 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Teeter
Holly Lou Teeter is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Teeter received a commission on August 3, 2018.
Judge Teeter's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Teeter's own (checked October 9, 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 9, 2026).
- Standing Order 26-04: Immigration Habeas Cases ↗
- Standing Order 26-01: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Filings ↗
- Standing Order 25-04: Access, Service, and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- Standing Order 25-03: Suspension of Local Rule 79.4 for Civil Sealed Files ↗
- Standing Order 2021-1: Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
How Judge Teeter decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Kansas unjust enrichment requires the plaintiff to have conferred a benefit directly ON the defendant. Buying a product downstream through a distributor does not confer a benefit on the original seller/overhauler; an indirect or no-privity unjust-enrichment claim survives only in limited 'special circumstances' (the defendant misled or induced detrimental reliance, or fraud). To plead it against a remote party, allege those special circumstances, not just that the goods originated with the defendant.
“the undisputed facts show that Plaintiff bought an FCU from a third party that had previously been restored by Defendant. ... Plaintiff has not come forward with facts on which a jury could rely to find that it conferred a benefit on Defendant.”
In John Michael Associates v. BlueStem Management Advisors, Teeter denied summary judgment on the contract claim because the defendants’ unsigned term sheets lacked authentication and foundation, and their legal briefing did not establish that the sheets were part of the agreement.
“Defendants’ evidence for inclusion of the term sheets is unauthenticated, unsigned, and lacks any foundational support in the summary-judgment record. And Defendants have not discussed the associated legal issues in any depth.”
In Montelongo-Rosales, Teeter denied suppression after finding that a trained dog’s alert gave officers probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception.
“And the police service dog’s positive alert and indication that the odor of narcotics had been detected in the vehicle provided probable cause to conduct a warrantless search under the automobile exception.”
In IMA Financial Group v. Bryan, Teeter compelled arbitration because a later shareholder agreement’s broad arbitration clause covered the employment claims and displaced an earlier agreement’s court-forum clause.
“This arbitration provision modifies or displaces the forum-selection clause in the NSA Agreements and controls.”
Procedural preferences
In Ayalla v. National APWU, Teeter dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against the national union for lack of standing after the plaintiff did not respond to its argument or identify allegations supporting the claim.
“National APWU raised this issue in its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not respond or point to allegations that would plausibly state a claim. ... Plaintiff has not met her burden on standing, so the Court finds dismissal appropriate on this basis.”
In Ayalla v. National APWU, Teeter held the age-discrimination claim untimely because the plaintiff charged the local union within the EEOC deadline but did not add the national union until more than ten months after that deadline.
“Plaintiff did file one on March 13, 2023 against the local union. ... But Plaintiff did not amend. She instead waited almost a year and filed another EEOC charge against National APWU on March 13, 2024. This exceeded her deadline by more than ten months.”
In Lynn v. Willnauer, Teeter declined to resolve the exhaustion defense during Section 1915A screening because the defendants had not been served, then set a deadline for any dispositive motion on that issue.
“Exhaustion is an affirmative defense, and Defendants have not been served in this case. The Court is ordering service on the remaining Defendants. ... This same deadline shall apply to any dispositive motion on the issue of exhaustion.”
At the pleading stage, she allowed an unjust-enrichment claim to proceed as an alternative theory while the available statutory or contract remedy remained unresolved.
“The Court finds Short is permitted at this stage to plead alternative claims.”
In class-certification briefing, the court criticized unnecessarily voluminous submissions and warned counsel to follow local page limits in later dispositive briefing. Keep evidentiary objections within the authorized briefing and seek leave before expanding it.
“The Court expects the parties to respect local rules about page limits moving forward and may impose additional briefing requirements as this case moves into the dispositive stage.”
Cautions
In Ayalla v. National APWU, Teeter dismissed the claims with prejudice after the plaintiff amended without curing defects raised earlier and chose to stand on the amended complaint; the court rejected a wait-and-see approach to pleading in that case.
“This approach also promotes efficiency and prevents parties from taking a ‘wait-and-see’ approach to see what can get by before making fulsome efforts to address the challenged issues.”
In Edelman, Teeter denied trade-secret attorney fees to the party that won summary judgment because the prevailing party had not shown the opponent acted in bad faith.
“Court finds that Mariner is the prevailing party but has not shown that Edelman acted in bad faith. The Court exercises its discretion and denies an award of attorney’s fees.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 52) is denied in part and granted in part.”
“National APWU’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 35) is GRANTED. National APWU is dismissed with prejudice from the case.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 85) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is denied as to the negligence claim. The motion is granted as to the unjust-enrichment claim.”
“THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record (Doc. 7) is DENIED.”
“THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Defendant's motion to compel arbitration (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. This matter is stayed pending arbitration's conclusion.”
“THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Defendant's motion to suppress (Doc. 16) is DENIED.”
“THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Hickman's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. ... 31), ... are GRANTED. All claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Federal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 49), ... are GRANTED. All claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Jeffrey Solar’s Motion to Dismiss ... (Doc. 50) are GRANTED. All claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction ... (Doc. 24) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief ... (Doc. 73) is GRANTED.”
“THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Show Cause Order (Doc. 141) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 103) is DENIED.”
“THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 130) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 127) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Defendant's Motion to Vacate and Discharge with Prejudice Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 96) is DISMISSED. The Court DENIES the request for an evidentiary hearing and DENIES a certificate of appealability.”
“THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 88) 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 | 6 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 6 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| 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 United States District Court for the District of Kansas, not for Judge Teeter: 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 | 967 | 7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 225 | 4.8 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 645 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 83 | 18.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 967 | 7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 912 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 909 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,092 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,063 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,180 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,884 | 20.7 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 Teeter with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Teeter, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Teeter's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace