Sarah S. Vance
How Judge Vance rules, drawn from 39 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Vance
Sarah S. Vance is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Vance received a commission on September 29, 1994. Judge Vance assumed senior status on January 16, 2024.
Judge Vance's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Vance'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 Vance decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mendy v. Pendleton, Vance found the plaintiff's claim of New Jersey citizenship unpersuasive because it conflicted with his statements about domicile in other legal proceedings. She found diversity jurisdiction absent.
“Mendy's conflicting statements in different legal proceedings about his domicile indicate that his current representations lack candor and credibility.”
In Zayzay v. B.P. Exploration, Vance granted summary judgment in a Deepwater Horizon exposure suit because the plaintiff lacked admissible expert evidence of causation.
“Because plaintiff is unable to sustain his burden on causation, the Court grants summary judgment.”
In one offshore lease dispute, the court rejected an industry-practice argument where it conflicted with the legal effect of an assignment. The former working-interest owner remained liable for expenses because assignment alone did not discharge obligations to a third party.
“does not nullify the law. And the law is clear that assignment alone does not”
In Carter v. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, Vance denied an employer’s arbitration request after finding that its policy manual disclaimed contractual force and that the employee’s acknowledgment did not accept the arbitration clause.
“It is not a binding contract.”
Procedural preferences
In Stewart v. HOFS, Vance denied the plaintiffs' partial summary judgment motion as premature under Rule 56(d). The defendants identified evidence held during related criminal proceedings that they needed to answer the motion.
“Defendants have therefore met their burden under Rule 56(d), and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is denied.”
In Mendy v. Pendleton, Vance found the plaintiff's opposition untimely under Local Rule 7.5 and said she need not consider it. She nevertheless addressed its arguments before finding that diversity jurisdiction was absent.
“Plaintiff's opposition memorandum was untimely. See E.D. La. L.R. 7.5 ... The Court therefore need not consider any arguments or evidence submitted in Mendy's untimely filing.”
In Joiner v. Lewis, Vance declined to consider medical records attached to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the complaint did not refer to them; considering them would convert the motion to summary judgment.
“the records cannot be considered in ruling on the motion to dismiss without converting it into a motion for summary judgment”
In Erwin v. Murray, Vance stayed general discovery while Murray prepared a qualified immunity summary judgment motion. She preserved the possibility of limited discovery if the immunity decision required factual clarification, and directed the plaintiff to identify any requested discovery precisely.
“Defendants are thus not entitled to a complete stay of discovery at the summary-judgment stage, if the Court finds limited discovery necessary to its determination of Murray’s entitlement to qualified immunity.”
In Galloway v. Day, Vance found no clear error in an unopposed magistrate judge's report and recommendation, adopted it, and dismissed the habeas petition as time-barred.
“The Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as its opinion.”
In a declaratory coverage action overlapping state injury suits, Vance declined discretionary federal jurisdiction after finding that the state forum could resolve the broader dispute more efficiently.
“The most efficient forum in which to resolve all the legal issues between the parties is the state court.”
Vance found good cause to continue trial and remaining deadlines when the plaintiff’s medical condition had not stabilized, preventing the parties from assessing damages or meeting the existing schedule despite diligence.
“The Court finds that these reasons constitute good cause for a continuance of trial.”
In a joint request to move trial and discovery deadlines by ninety days, Vance found no good cause where the parties had already had seven and a half months for discovery, nearly three months remained before trial, and the proposed witnesses could be subpoenaed.
“The Court finds that the parties have not met the good cause standard here.”
Cautions
In Joiner v. Lewis, Vance granted summary judgment to two medical defendants on the prisoner's deliberate indifference claims. She construed his filings liberally because he represented himself, but found that the record did not show a genuine factual dispute about the care they provided.
“This does not mean, however, that a court ‘will invent, out of whole cloth, novel arguments on behalf of a pro se plaintiff in the absence of meaningful, albeit imperfect, briefing.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against Samuel Gore and Jose Ham are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED as premature.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES plaintiff's objections, APPROVES and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, DENIES defendant's motion to dismiss.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the motions for summary judgment are DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration are DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion to re-open the case and vacate the judgment.”
“the Court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
“defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Chase's motion. A final judgment as to plaintiffs' claims against Chase will follow the entry of this Order.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendants' motion... The Court GRANTS defendants' request to stay all discovery... The Court DENIES defendants' request to stay discovery insofar as they seek to foreclose the Court's authority to permit narrowly tailored discovery pursuant to Lion Boulos and its progeny.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 310 days (N = 19).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 47 days (N = 5).
From the 11 enumerated 2021-2023 cases: a cluster of 'X v. United States' suits (FTCA/SS, thin/no docket entries), several Hurricane Ida first-party insurance cases (removed diversity), a marine limitation-of-liability matter, and personal-injury diversity cases. Nature-of-suit examples captured: Insurance, 340 Marine, P.I.: Other.
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 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 42 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 63 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 79 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 75 |
| 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 Vance: 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 Vance with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Vance, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Vance's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace