Kathryn Hoefer Vratil
How Judge Vratil rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Vratil
Kathryn Hoefer Vratil is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Vratil received a commission on October 9, 1992. Judge Vratil assumed senior status on April 22, 2014.
Judge Vratil's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Vratil, 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
Trial
Disclose expected trial witnesses and exhibits to opposing counsel 24 hours in advance.
“witnesses and exhibits expected to be used in the trial must be disclosed to opposing counsel 24 hours in advance.”
Trial
For hearings or trial, provide the court with a marked paper exhibit copy in a three-ring binder.
“Counsel should provide the Court a copy of exhibits to be considered at the outset of hearings or trial. This paper copy should be marked and submitted in a 3-ring binder.”
Trial
Absent leave, each party has 20 minutes for opening and 20 minutes for closing.
“Absent prior leave of Court, each party will be limited to 20 minutes for opening statements and 20 minutes for closing arguments.”
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 Vratil decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Streit v. Snap-on Equipment, Vratil enforced a forum-selection clause after finding the plaintiff had not carried the burden of overcoming it. The clause’s language covered the statutory claims as well as the contract dispute, and the plaintiff’s general objections about bargaining power and inconvenience did not defeat it.
“Plaintiff therefore bears a heavy burden to overcome the forum selection clause.”
A signature on a page that expressly incorporates other pages binds the signer objectively, regardless of subjective intent or non-receipt; terms can be incorporated by reference if clearly identified and intended.
“Plaintiff's subjective intent, however, cannot trump his objective assent to both pages of the contract when he signed page one.”
On an employment-retaliation summary-judgment motion, evidence of multiple alleged acts of harassment reached trial where the employer had not explained each act with a nonretaliatory reason.
“has not offered non-retaliatory reasons for every alleged act of harassment.”
In Paulo v. Accordia Life, Vratil denied dismissal of the insurer’s third-party claims after accepting its allegation that it paid beneficiaries under threat of a contract suit. On those pleaded facts, the voluntary-payment defense did not defeat recovery.
“Accepting these facts as true, Accordia’s payments were not voluntary and the voluntary payment rule does not bar recovery.”
Procedural preferences
In Helmstetter v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Vratil overruled a summary judgment motion because the amended complaint and briefing left unclear which of two plaintiffs asserted each claim against which defendant. She directed a pretrial conference to produce an order identifying the parties, law, and supporting allegations for each claim before any renewed motion.
“Without actually knowing what plaintiffs’ claims are, the Court cannot determine whether defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”
In Fitzer v. Wyandotte Center, Vratil granted the plaintiff a short extension to answer a summary judgment motion after counsel missed the local-rule deadline. Although counsel controlled the error, Vratil found no prejudice, material delay, or bad faith and set a new filing date.
“On this occasion, because the extension sought is relatively short and will occasion no prejudice to defendant or the judicial process, the Court sustains plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
In a refinery nuisance case, she dismissed medical monitoring as a separate claim while leaving monitoring expenses potentially available as relief on other claims.
“plaintiffs cannot maintain medical monitoring as an independent claim, but medical monitoring is available under their other Counts”
Cautions
In Streit v. Snap-on Equipment, Vratil considered an incorporation argument first raised in the defendant's reply because the plaintiff had over two months to seek a response. She also accepted the reply despite a 12-day filing delay because the plaintiff showed no prejudice and did not object; she then enforced the forum-selection clause.
“On this occasion, because the delay was relatively short and did not prejudice plaintiff, and because plaintiff did not ask the court to disregard defendant’s reply, the Court will not disregard it.”
Recasting the same employment dispute under different legal theories did not avoid the preclusive effect of the earlier judgment.
“The Court therefore finds that the doctrine of res judicata precludes the claims in plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. #10).”
In one proposed overtime settlement, preliminary approval failed because counsel did not supply a full fee analysis or enough information about the named plaintiff’s work and risk to assess his service award. A request for conditional certification in the same motion succeeded.
“Absent a full lodestar analysis, the Court cannot ascertain the reasonableness of the requested fee award.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Snap-on Equipment, Inc.'s Motion To Dismiss For Improper Venue (Doc. #8) filed July 30, 2010 be and hereby is SUSTAINED. All claims against Snap-on Equipment, Inc. are hereby dismissed without prejudice.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion To Extend Time To File Response On Summary Judgment Or File Out of Time (Doc. #55) filed June 18, 2010 is hereby sustained.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #71) filed April 20, 2020 is OVERRULED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion Regarding Technical Failure (Doc. #76) filed May 12, 2020 is OVERRULED as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion To File Instanter (Doc. #77) filed May 12, 2020 is OVERRULED as moot.”
“Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim (Doc. #15) filed January 16, 2026 is SUSTAINED.”
“Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #86) filed March 2, 2026 is OVERRULED.”
“Of Defendant’s Motion In Limine (Doc. #107) filed April 13, 2026 is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine (Doc. #108) filed April 13, 2026 is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part.”
“Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Antimo, LLC’s Motion To Strike Or Dismiss Defendant Reich’s Counterclaim For Breach Of Contract & To Strike His Third & Fourth Affirmative Defenses (Doc. #81) filed April 8, 2026 is OVERRULED.”
“Defendants CVR Energy, Inc., And CVR Partners, LP’s Renewed Motion To Dismiss (Doc. #23) filed April 10, 2026 is OVERRULED.”
“Defendants’ Partial Motion To Dismiss Count III Of Amended Complaint (Medical Monitoring Claim) (Doc. #25) filed April 10, 2026 is SUSTAINED.”
“the Court overrules both motions.”
“is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part.”
“Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss (Doc. #13) filed September 29, 2025 is SUSTAINED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Memorandum In Support Of Rule 59(e) Motion (Doc. #37) filed April 1, 2026 is SUSTAINED,”
“Plaintiff’s Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Doc. #35) filed March 25, 2026 is OVERRULED.”
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 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 United States District Court for the District of Kansas, not for Judge Vratil: 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 Vratil with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Vratil, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Vratil's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace