E. Richard Webber
How Judge Webber rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Webber no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Webber
E. Richard Webber served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, he received his commission on December 26, 1995. He took senior status on June 30, 2009, and inactive senior status in 2022.
How Judge Webber decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In J.B. v. Missouri Baptist Hospital of Sullivan, the court declined to apply a 2017 Missouri statutory amendment retrospectively. Though the amendment largely changed a definition, it would have eliminated a hospital’s potential liability for the plaintiff’s claim, so the court treated it as substantive and denied summary judgment.
“this Court will not find the 2017 amendment to the statute constituted a mere procedural amendment solely on the basis that it was largely a definitional change. ... while on its face, the amended version of the statute appears to only add a simple clarification, in practice, the change effectively eliminated the liability of an entire entity.”
In Walton v. Rendlen, Webber denied remand because the defendant federal judge asserted a colorable judicial-immunity defense to allegations arising from judicial acts; Webber also found that any missing state-court papers were a curable removal defect.
“An officer's federal defense need be only colorable to assure the federal court that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the case[.] ... Judge Rendlen has met his burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction, because he is a federal officer and has adequately pled the federal defense of judicial immunity.”
Procedural preferences
In Smith v. City of St. Ann, the court found the plaintiff’s summary-judgment responses insufficiently specific and partly reliant on inadmissible evidence. Even assuming the responses adequately cited the record, the court found no specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial and granted the City’s motion.
“City is correct that Plaintiff's denials and factual statements lack the particularity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), and refer to inadmissible evidence. Nevertheless, even assuming ... Plaintiff's Response fails to set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Cautions
In Burke v. Versa-Tags, Inc., Webber declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Missouri Human Rights Act claim and remanded it after the federal age-discrimination claim was dismissed early in the case.
“After weighing the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, this Court concludes that it should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Missouri Baptist Hospital of Sullivan's Motion for Summary Judgment [42] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 3] is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Elbert A. Walton, Jr.'s First Amended Motion to Remand Case to State Court [ECF No. 6] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Count I of the Complaint is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #16] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the Case Management Order to Allow Plaintiff to Name an Expert Witness [doc. #24] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to permit Plaintiff to Withdraw Certain Admissions [doc. #23] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. #87] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony [58] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. This Court grants Defendants' request to exclude expert witnesses from testifying as to whether, during the time of the accident, the subject Toyota 4Runner was in the same or substantially similar condition as when it was first sold. This Court denies Defendants' request to exclude testimony by Plaintiffs' expert witnesses opining that the rollover crash was caused by an alleged design defect.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [doc. #10] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions [doc. #46] and Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees [doc. #66] are GRANTED, in part. Guardian shall pay $6,213.66 to Plaintiffs as a sanction for its delay in responding to Plaintiffs' discovery requests.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Sanctions [doc. 91] is DENIED at this time. Plaintiff shall have until Friday June 22, 2007 at 12:00 p.m. (noon) to submit stipulations and a complete set of jury instructions.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or for a Directed Verdict as to Count V [doc. #95] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Close Proceedings [doc. #98] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Severance [doc. #61] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [doc. #19 oral motion; doc. #64 documentary motion] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motions for class certification [Doc. #2] and for appointment of process server [Doc. #4] are DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 535 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 55 days (N = 2).
Senior District Judge since 2009. His assigned docket is dominated by short administrative miscellaneous matters (union and benefit-fund and bank-garnishment registrations, often terminated the same day) and fast prisoner § 2255 dismissals; his substantive civil work (§ 1983, medical malpractice, complex RICO) appears in older, longer-running cases.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Webber was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2022.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 1 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Webber 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.