Lance M. Africk
How Judge Africk rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Africk
Lance M. Africk is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Africk received a commission on April 17, 2002. Judge Africk assumed senior status on October 1, 2024.
Judge Africk's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Africk'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).
How Judge Africk decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
When a signed arbitration agreement delegated questions of arbitrability and the opposing party did not specifically challenge the delegation clause, Africk enforced the delegation and stayed the related litigation pending arbitration.
“Because plaintiff’s arguments do not ‘attack the existence of a contract between the parties, the existence of an agreement to arbitrate between the parties, or the validity of the delegation clause,’ Wealth Assistants LLC, 2024 WL 2980812, at *7 , the Court honors the agreement to delegate and compels plaintiff’s arguments to arbitration, Arnold, 890 F.3d at 554.”
In Aleman v. USAA General Indemnity Co., Africk denied a contractor's request to compel arbitration. The purported signer had died before the contract date, and the contractor produced no evidence that the plaintiff had accepted the agreement.
“First, the signature on the contract is not plaintiff’s and it cannot be her husband’s because he died almost two months before the contract was signed. BMS implies that the contract was signed by someone else on Donald Aleman’s behalf, but it produces no evidence to substantiate this claim.”
Africk denied a further amendment in an employment suit after four versions of the complaint failed to state a claim and the plaintiff did not identify a workable cure. He dismissed the action with prejudice.
“The Court does not need to undertake this process for a fifth time.”
In a note-enforcement suit, reviewed the written instruments and unanswered admissions before granting an unopposed summary-judgment motion.
“Unopposed motions for summary judgment ‘cannot be granted simply because there is no opposition”
Cautions
In a LifeVest product-liability case involving a federally approved Class III medical device, Africk dismissed an amended complaint with prejudice where the parallel state-law theories were preempted or lacked specific supporting facts.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zoll’s motion44 to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint is GRANTED and plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
In Gillespie’s charter-school employment suit, the court dismissed the federal civil-rights claim because the complaint did not allege state action in the termination; it returned the remaining state claims to state court.
“Because Gillespie has not alleged that her termination was state action, her § 1983 claim must be dismissed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that the Hospitals' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the FTC's claims against the Hospitals are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the State's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“the State's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the FTC's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Alizadeh's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Horizon's motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Horizon may reurge this motion once an amended counterclaim has been filed or may file a motion for summary judgment when the record has become more developed.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Fobb and Collection's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and that the claims against Fobb and Collection in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Cambre's motion to remand is GRANTED. The above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the Twenty-Third Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. James, State of Louisiana.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cambre's request for attorney's fees and costs is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Green Coast's motion to remand is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion to vacate or for reconsideration is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion to amend the scheduling order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Fieldwood's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 35 days (N = 1).
- From the enumerated 2024 cases plus the targeted lookup: a broad New Orleans civil/criminal docket: maritime/marine personal injury (Jones Act, 28:1333/28:1332), product-liability diversity (Zimmer Biomet), motor-vehicle and insurance diversity suits (National Interstate, Nautilus), Section 1983 civil-rights and prisoner civil-rights suits, Section 2254 state habeas, retail premises injury (Old Navy), Deepwater Horizon BELO toxic-tort, and criminal matters.
- NOS examples captured below.
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 9 |
| 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 Eastern District of Louisiana, not for Judge Africk: 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 | 10,411 | 79.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 3,511 | 86.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,814 | 14.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 4,062 | 86.8 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 23.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 10,411 | 79.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 6,506 | 10.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 6,610 | 24.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,635 | 69.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 11,535 | 24.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 16,631 | 36 months |
| Sep 2019 | 9,196 | 10.3 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 Africk with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Africk, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Africk's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace