Maria Ann Lanahan
How Judge Lanahan rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lanahan
Maria Ann Lanahan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Lanahan received a commission on September 24, 2025.
Judge Lanahan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lanahan, 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
When filing many exhibits, file an exhibit key identifying the docket entry for each exhibit.
“When filing numerous exhibits, after a CM/ECF docket entry number is assigned, the filing party should file an ‘Exhibit Key,’ identifying the docket entry at which each exhibit appears”
Discovery
After meeting and conferring, jointly request a telephone conference if the discovery dispute remains.
“If the parties are still unable to reach an agreement without court intervention, they must jointly file a motion requesting a telephone conference with the Court.”
Discovery
Keep a joint motion requesting a discovery conference to three pages and summarize both positions and resolution efforts.
“The motion must concisely summarize the parties’ positions on the issue(s) in dispute and their efforts to achieve a resolution in no more than three (3) pages.”
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 Lanahan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a deliberate-indifference medical claim, a genuine dispute between medical professionals about whether a treatment is necessary defeats the claim — a prisoner is entitled to treatment, not to a particular procedure. Frame Eighth Amendment medical claims around conscious disregard of a known serious need, not disagreement with a clinical judgment.
“While Manzella is entitled to medical treatment, he is not entitled to shoulder surgery when medical professionals disagree about whether that surgery is necessary.”
In Burns v. City of St. Louis, an officer argued that alternative allegations in a civil-rights complaint contradicted each other. The court rejected that ground for dismissal because Rule 8(d)(2) allowed the plaintiff to plead alternative theories.
“Plaintiffs are permitted to plead several theories in the alternative.”
On leave to amend, the burden is on the party OPPOSING amendment to show a good reason to deny; weak or even inaccurate briefing by the movant is not itself a ground for denial. Opponents must affirmatively prove futility/prejudice, not poke holes in the movant's brief.
“The question is not whether Newman has provided persuasive grounds for amendment; it is whether there is good reason to deny the amendment.”
In Cutiopala v. Noem, Lanahan denied an immigration detainee’s habeas petition, holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1225 applied despite an earlier agency interpretation because that interpretation conflicted with the statutory text.
“Though agency interpretations (especially those close in time to the passage of a statute) may be useful guides, they are not binding. ... The historic interpretation does not control here because it is contrary to the plain text.”
Procedural preferences
In Burns v. City of St. Louis, Lanahan distinguished a factual allegation about an officer’s knowledge of prior sexual misconduct from assertions that merely tracked the legal elements of the plaintiff’s claim.
“The third allegation—that Officer Williams ‘knew or should have known’ of a danger is also a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
In Burns v. City of St. Louis, Lanahan denied leave to amend without prejudice because the proposed changes might be futile, and instructed the plaintiff to attach a proposed amended pleading if she renewed the request.
“if she wishes to amend her pleading, she should file a motion to amend with the proposed amended pleading attached as a proposed document.”
On an answer filed 51 days late, she granted relief under Rule 6(b) after weighing minimal prejudice, good faith, and a potential defense. Explain the delay and address prejudice and the defense when requesting leave after a deadline.
“While not particularly compelling, this is not fatal.”
Cautions
In Newman v. Lyft, Inc., Lanahan rejected Lyft’s undeveloped argument that the plaintiff’s proposed product-liability claim was futile and granted leave to file an amended complaint.
“Lyft levies this argument without further elaboration. The Court is not persuaded by this conclusory argument.”
In Equity One Franchisors, LLC v. Dishon, Lanahan denied a temporary restraining order because the claimed lost business revenue was measurable in money damages and Equity One had not shown irreparable harm.
“Even if Dishon has blatantly violated his contractual obligations, Equity One has not demonstrated that the resulting harm from those violations is not reparable with money damages. In fact, this case is all about money.”
In Newman v. Lyft, Inc., Lanahan warned that misrepresentations in a brief could undermine credibility and invite Rule 11 sanctions, even as she granted the plaintiff leave to amend.
“Misrepresentations undermine a party's credibility and could potentially lead to sanctions under Rule 11...”
In Nike’s ex parte trademark restraining-order request, plaintiff-arranged test purchases from online sellers did not establish personal jurisdiction over every seller. Show each defendant’s own forum contacts before asking for emergency relief against a large seller list.
“Nike itself accessed a given defendant’s nationally available e-commerce store on a third-party website and purchased an infringing good to be shipped to Missouri.”
In the pharmacy reimbursement case, the court enforced a contract clause waiving class litigation after rejecting the plaintiff’s unconscionability challenge. A party seeking class treatment despite an agreed waiver must support a concrete challenge to that clause.
“Because it is not unconscionable, the Court applies the PPA’s no-class-action provision.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is hereby ordered that Defendants Nurse Karen S. Rose, Dr. Jerry Lovelace, Dr. William Dennis, and Todd Renshaw's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 91) is GRANTED with respect to the deliberate indifference claims regarding declining to approve shoulder surgery, delay in sending Manzella to emergency care, and failure to follow up on Manzella's injuries and DENIED with respect to Manzella's removal-of-lay-ins claims and state-law claims.”
“Manzella's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, the City's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Counts I and VI. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part with respect to Counts II and III. It is granted with respect to Officer Williams's and Officer Ingram's official capacities but denied with respect to their individual capacities. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to Counts IV and V.”
“Burns's Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED without prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Lisa Newman's Amended Motion for Leave to File Sixth Amended Complaint (Doc. 66) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Equity One's motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 5) is DENIED.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED and Dismissed.”
After the parties consented to a new trial date and the defendant executed a speedy-trial waiver, Lanahan continued trial to August 17, 2026 and excluded the intervening period under the Speedy Trial Act. The order did not resolve a party motion and is excluded from motion statistics.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Continue (Doc. [26]) is GRANTED.”
“It is hereby ordered that Defendant Maryville University’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is GRANTED.”
“Maryville University’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 20) is DENIED as moot.”
“The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Nike’s motion for a temporary restraining order, (Doc. 13), is DENIED.”
“Abstrakt Marketing Group LLC’s motion to dismiss and/or strike certain allegations (Doc. 17) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Continue (Doc. [40]) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 153 days (N = 5).
- Not systematically enumerated.
- The 4 analyzed dockets span a § 1983 prisoner medical deliberate-indifference suit (Manzella), a municipal civil-rights case (Burns, removed), a wrongful-death personal-injury suit against Lyft (Newman, removed), and a franchise trade-secret and contract dispute (Equity One).
- Additional observed Lanahan-assigned cases span wage-and-hour, consumer-protection, products-liability, and ERISA matters, consistent with a general civil docket.
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 | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 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 Missouri, not for Judge Lanahan: 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 Lanahan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lanahan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lanahan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace