John Andrew Ross
How Judge Ross rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ross
John Andrew Ross is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Ross received a commission on October 11, 2011. Judge Ross assumed senior status on June 9, 2023.
Judge Ross's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ross, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Submit courtesy copies of all pretrial materials.
“Parties shall also submit courtesy copies of all pretrial materials.”
Discovery
Meet and confer before filing a discovery motion and certify that effort.
“Before filing any discovery-related motion, you must meet and confer with opposing counsel in an attempt to resolve the dispute, and your motion must contain a certification that you have done so.”
Conferences
Out-of-town counsel may join a Rule 16 conference by Zoom or phone with prior approval.
“Out of town counsel may participate by zoom or phone with prior approval.”
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 Ross decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Shaver v. Combe Incorporated, Ross remanded a removed product-liability suit because the plaintiffs’ claims were sufficiently related for joinder and the defendants had not shown complete diversity; he rejected their attempt to frame a misjoinder argument as fraudulent joinder.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are sufficiently related to support joinder in this case, and Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating diversity of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.”
In Hall v. UGG Australia, the court dismissed Missouri resident Rachel Kyburz from a removed employment-discrimination case after finding no reasonable factual and legal basis for the claim against her. The court treated her joinder as fraudulent for diversity purposes; a second individual defendant had already left the case.
“The Court will grant the Motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of Defendant Rachel Kyburz because she was fraudulently joined as a defendant in this case.”
In Turner v. Mull, Ross granted the prison defendants summary judgment on qualified immunity after finding that the plaintiff had not shown that transport in a non-accessible vehicle or a cell search violated his constitutional rights.
“Based upon the record, the Court finds that Plaintiff's 1983 claims against the Prison Defendants are barred by qualified immunity.”
In Social Security cases, 42 U.S.C. 405(g) is the exclusive route to judicial review and you must point to a reviewable 'final decision' of the Commissioner; without one the court lacks jurisdiction and dismisses under Rule 12(b)(1).
“Because Plaintiff has not satisfied the statutory requirement of Section 405(g) that he obtain a final agency decision by the Commissioner that is properly subject to judicial review, the Court lacks jurisdiction over his claim.”
In Burdess v. Cottrell, Inc., Ross granted summary judgment after finding that the claims accrued in Illinois and were time-barred there under Missouri’s borrowing statute; the derivative loss-of-consortium claim also failed.
“With those facts before it, this Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred under Illinois law pursuant to Missouri’s borrowing statute.”
In Johnson v. AT&T Corp., the court struck a private plaintiff’s request for an injunction under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, agreeing with decisions that the statute did not make that remedy available to private litigants.
“The Court agrees with the reasoning of the Courts in this District and holds that the FCRA does not permit injunctive relief. The Court strikes Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.”
In one contested robocall class certification ruling, Judge Ross found the defendant’s call logs useful for identifying potential class members by wrong-number calls and call dates. He narrowed the class period to avoid overlap with an earlier settlement.
“These are objective indicators to identify potential class members.”
Procedural preferences
In Pounds v. U.S. Small Business Administration, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint without obtaining leave or following the local rule’s formatting requirements, then did not respond to the motion to strike. The court granted the motion and struck that pleading.
“Here, Plaintiff has not abided by any of the requirements to amend his Complaint pursuant to the Court’s local rules or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Plaintiff also failed to respond to Defendant’s Motion. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion is well taken.”
In Allen v. State of Missouri, the court construed a self-represented plaintiff’s late reply as a request to reconsider summary judgment. It denied that request because the reply offered no new argument that would change the earlier ruling.
“Plaintiff raises no new arguments either in support of his motion or in opposition to Defendant’s motion that could cause the Court to reconsider its previous rulings.”
In Henson v. Casey’s General Stores, Inc., Ross allowed the plaintiff to add a claim and defendant because the new claim was not clearly frivolous, discovery remained open, and the trial date was still ten months away.
“For these reasons, the Court finds the claim Plaintiff seeks to add is not clearly frivolous.”
In Johnson v. AT&T Corp., Ross treated a dismissal motion as a request for a more definite statement and gave the plaintiff seven days to amend because the complaint omitted facts needed to support the claim.
“The Court, therefore, grants Defendant’s request for a more definite statement and affords Plaintiff seven (7) days to file an amended complaint that complies with this Court’s Order.”
Cautions
In Chowdada v. Judge Technical Services, the court declined to dismiss a self-represented plaintiff’s case as a discovery sanction after finding that he had made a good-faith effort and substantially complied. It left open narrower sanctions concerning damages discovery if the case reached trial.
“Upon careful review of Plaintiff’s discovery submissions, this Court finds that the harsh sanction of dismissal is not warranted. ... Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, has now made a good faith effort to respond to Defendant’s interrogatories and requests for production. Overall, Plaintiff has substantially complied with Defendant’s discovery requests.”
A litigant cannot manufacture recusal by naming the presiding judge as a defendant; adverse rulings are not a basis for recusal, and such motions are denied as frivolous judge-shopping.
“Courts have repeatedly and understandably held, however, that litigants may not ‘judge-shop’ by naming the presiding judge as a defendant and seeking recusal.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that Plaintiff’s Motion for Two Day Extension [73] and Motion for Leave to File in Excess of Fifteen Pages [75] are GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Memorandum, docketed as a motion for Reconsideration [77] is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, construed as a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [102] and Defendant Chandler's Motion for Summary Judgment [104] are GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [8] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [4] is DENIED without prejudice as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Defendants Brendan Decker and Rachel Kyburz (Doc. 10) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows. The Motion is DENIED as moot to the extent it seeks dismissal of Defendant Brendan Decker. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Defendant Rachel Kyburz.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [16] is GRANTED and Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are awarded $102,979.17 in delinquent contributions ... for a total of $129,053.88.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Angela Nails' Motion to Reconsider [7] is DENIED.”
In a self-represented ADA employment-discrimination suit screened under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), the court dismissed two individual defendants because the ADA imposes no individual liability and directed the plaintiff to amend to name her employer. When she failed to comply or prosecute, Ross dismissed the case sua sponte and without prejudice under Rule 41(b), certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Petition [25] and Motion for Leave to Add Party Defendant [26] are GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of the Complaint and to Strike Plaintiff’s Request for Injunctive Relief [6] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Plaintiff is granted seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint. The Court strikes Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) Motion to Defer Ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Permit Limited Discovery [13] is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Case for Failure to Cooperate in Discovery and Obey the Court’s Discovery Order (Doc. 34) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reset the Dispositive Motion Deadline and Vacate Trial Setting (Doc. 45) is GRANTED in part. The trial setting of November 9, 2020 and all trial-related deadlines are hereby VACATED. The dispositive motion deadline shall be extended to November 13, 2020.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 85 days (N = 3).
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Missouri, not for Judge Ross: 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 | 1,561 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 502 | 4.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,031 | 7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 16 | 15.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 31.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,561 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,525 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,323 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,466 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,424 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,950 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,913 | 2.2 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 Ross with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ross, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ross's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace