Monti Louis Belot
How Judge Belot decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Will follow recent, factually parallel out-of-circuit authority over a litigant's preferred in-circuit case when he finds the in-circuit case distinguishable, and is candid that the appellate court is better positioned to settle an unsettled question.
“this court finds that Hellebust is both factually and legally distinguishable and therefore declines to conclude that it controls the outcome of this case.”
Procedural preferences
Rigorously enforces D. Kan. Local Rule 56.1: a non-movant who fails to controvert the movant's statement of facts with record citations has those facts deemed admitted, which often decides the summary-judgment motion.
“In her response, plaintiff failed to put forth any specific facts as required by D. Kan. Rule 56.1.”
Actively discourages motions for reconsideration, citing D. Kan. Rule 7.3 and the Comeau v. Rupp standard and reminding parties that re-arguing previously available points is improper.
“A motion for reconsideration of this order pursuant to this court's Rule 7.3 is not encouraged.”
Cautions
Reacts sharply to tactical or poorly-explained procedural maneuvers — he will openly call an inadequate justification for a late voluntary dismissal frivolous when discovery is closed and a dispositive motion is pending.
“These explanations are not sufficient; on the contrary, they are patently frivolous.”
Bluntly says when he cannot follow a party's legal argument, signaling that unclear or convoluted briefing will not earn favorable treatment.
“This court does not understand plaintiffs’ argument any better than, apparently, did the Ninth Circuit.”
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.
| Motions to dismiss N = 5 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for voluntary dismissal N = 3 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to file out of time N = 1 |
Granted: 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.
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 38) is granted.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 31) is therefore denied.”
“defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice is denied (Doc. 113)”
“plaintiff’s motion to dismiss without prejudice is granted (Doc. 114) on the following conditions:”
“Defendant City of Wichita’s amended motion to dismiss (Doc. 25) is granted.”
“Defendants Hall Properties and Ron Hall’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 30). Specifically, Ron Hall’s motion is granted and Hall Properties’ motion is denied.”
“Defendant KIS’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 32) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendants Trent and Janelle Edelman’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) is granted.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the state tort claims against the City of Wichita (Doc. 44) is granted without prejudice.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to file responses to dispositive motions out of time (Doc. 54) is granted.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 19 and 20) is sustained.”
“Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21), which is appropriate but moot in view of the ruling herein.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts 4 and 5 (Doc. 22) is denied, without prejudice.”