Kathryn Hoefer Vratil
How Judge Vratil decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Enforces forum-selection clauses vigorously under Bremen: they are prima facie valid, the resisting party bears a 'heavy burden', and generic complaints of unequal bargaining power, cost, or inconvenience do not defeat them. A clause covering actions 'relating to' the agreement reaches statutory claims (e.g. KCPA), not just contract claims.
“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.”
Procedural preferences
Demands a clean, intelligible complaint before she will reach the merits. A complaint that lumps multiple plaintiffs and defendants together and asserts dozens of overlapping/duplicate-numbered counts will draw an order to produce a pretrial order delineating each claim (plaintiff, defendant, claim, statute, supporting allegations) rather than a merits ruling.
“the amended complaint does not clearly state who is suing whom and for what.”
Applies D. Kan. local-rule deadlines (Rule 6.1(d)(2)'s 21-day response window; Rule 7.4 waiver) but will excuse a missed deadline on a Pioneer excusable-neglect showing where the delay is short and non-prejudicial. Move promptly and show good faith.
“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”
Cautions
Generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, and applies D. Kan. Rule 7.4 to late filings — though she may overlook a short, non-prejudicial lapse where the opposing party had ample time to respond and did not object. Do not bank on the discretion; brief fully and timely.
“Typically, the Court would not consider new arguments raised in a party's reply.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motion to file N = 2 |
Moot / procedural: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for extension of time N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”