Monti Louis Belot
How Judge Belot rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Belot no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Belot
Monti L. Belot is an inactive senior judge of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush, he received his commission on November 25, 1991. He assumed senior status on March 4, 2008.
How Judge Belot decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Dool v. Burke, Belot dismissed an equal-protection challenge to Kansas's judicial nominating commission. He distinguished the Tenth Circuit's Hellebust decision about a board with broad government powers and found the Ninth Circuit's Kirk decision on a similar nominating commission persuasive.
“this court finds that Hellebust is both factually and legally distinguishable and therefore declines to conclude that it controls the outcome of this case.”
After a joint-venture trial, Belot removed punitive damages because the plaintiff had not proved injury separate from its contract loss, while leaving the compensatory award intact.
“Kansas law precludes an award of punitive damages on an action for breach of contract unless a plaintiff has alleged an independent tort which results in additional injury.”
Procedural preferences
In Brooks v. City of Wichita, Belot found that the plaintiff’s summary-judgment response failed to identify specific facts as Local Rule 56.1 required. He granted the defendant summary judgment on the claims in that case.
“In her response, plaintiff failed to put forth any specific facts as required by D. Kan. Rule 56.1.”
In Regan v. Kansas Investigative Services, Belot cautioned that reconsideration of his order under Local Rule 7.3 was not encouraged.
“A motion for reconsideration of this order pursuant to this court's Rule 7.3 is not encouraged.”
Belot required a prisoner litigating without counsel to answer a summary-judgment motion under Rule 56 and the court’s briefing rules.
“Plaintiff’s pro se status does not relieve him of his obligation to follow procedural rules.”
Cautions
In Brooks v. City of Wichita, Belot denied the plaintiff's late request to dismiss voluntarily after discovery closed and the defendant prepared for summary judgment. The plaintiff wanted to join a class action whose certification had already been denied or another class case that had not been filed, which Belot found inadequate and prejudicial to the defendant.
“Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 31) is therefore denied.”
In Dool v. Burke, Belot found the plaintiffs' argument that a parallel Ninth Circuit decision conflicted with equal-protection precedent unclear. He found no basis in their submission to disregard that decision and dismissed the challenge to Kansas's nominating commission.
“This court does not understand plaintiffs’ argument any better than, apparently, did the Ninth Circuit.”
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.”
“Cintas’ motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted as to UVS’ punitive damages claim and denied as to the remaining claims.”
“Cintas’ motion for a new trial is denied.”
“Cintas’ motion to alter or amend the judgment is denied as moot.”
“The IRS’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Ronald and Holden’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion to strike is denied as moot.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. (Doc. 9).”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for oral argument is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss count 3 of the amended complaint is denied. (Doc. 22).”
A historical record
Judge Belot no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.