Rodney W. Sippel
How Judge Sippel rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Sippel
Rodney W. Sippel is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Sippel received a commission on November 12, 1997. Judge Sippel assumed senior status on January 28, 2023.
Judge Sippel's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Sippel, 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
Provide paper courtesy copies of dispositive motions, supporting memoranda and exhibits to chambers.
“Parties shall submit a paper courtesy copy to chambers of (1) any motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, or motions for summary judgment, together with the memorandum in support and any exhibits; (2) any opposition memorandum, including exhibits; (3) any reply memorandum in support, including exhibits; (4) all pretrial compliance materials.”
Filing
Counsel may email proposed orders to the judicial assistant.
“Proposed orders may be emailed to my Judicial Assistant, Brian Crow, at the following email address: [email protected].”
Trial
Confer on jury instructions and submit one joint set when possible.
“Parties are required to meet and confer regarding jury instructions and whenever possible submit one package of jury instructions to the court on behalf of all the parties.”
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 Sippel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Johnson’s Title VII case, Judge Sippel denied the corporate defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions because her allegations gave them notice and plausibly supported a joint-employer relationship, despite the lack of specific facts about each company’s role.
“Although it would have been preferable for the Plaintiff to plead specific facts regarding each corporate defendant, the allegations made were sufficient to put the Defendants on notice of the claims against them.”
In Wilmering v. Bank of America, Sippel dismissed an MMPA claim against loan servicer Nationstar because it was exempt as a Missouri finance licensee and its servicing began years after loan origination, outside the sale or marketing of the loan.
“The loan servicing activity of Nationstar in this case began years after the loan was originated and is not ‘in connection with’ the sale or marketing of the loan.”
In Reeves v. Garda World, the court denied appointed counsel without prejudice after finding the plaintiff could present her claims at that stage and the issues were not complex.
“neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case appear to be complex.”
Procedural preferences
In Carter v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Sippel dismissed Title VII claims based on acts absent from Carter's EEOC charge while allowing his retaliatory-termination claim to proceed.
“The only discrete act that Carter raised in his EEOC charge was his allegation that he was terminated in retaliation for exercising his rights under Title VII. That is the only claim for which he received a right to sue from the EEOC. Carter’s EEOC charge does not assert any of the other discrete acts that he alludes to in his complaint.”
In Brown v. United States, Sippel treated Brown's Rule 60(b) motion attacking a prior § 2255 merits ruling as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and denied it.
“Despite his assertion otherwise, Brown’s Rule 60(b) motion must be treated as a second or successive section 2255 motion. ... Brown has not received authorization from the Eighth Circuit to file these claims. As a result, I will deny his motion.”
Cautions
In Smalley v. Gamache, the court set deadlines for summary-judgment briefing and expressly warned the self-represented plaintiff that it would rule on the defendants’ motion without further notice if he did not respond on time.
“Plaintiff is specifically warned that if he fails to timely respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, then the Court will proceed to rule the summary judgment motion without any additional notice being given to plaintiff.”
In Smith’s case, the court partly granted the defendants’ motion for sanctions after Smith repeatedly failed to participate in discovery and missed a court-ordered hearing; it ordered taxable costs and dismissal without prejudice.
“Smith has repeatedly failed to participate in discovery in this case, despite the Court’s orders to do so. Smith also failed to attend the hearing, despite the Court’s order to appear in person. As a result, Defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions will be granted in part”
In Roka v. Mullin, Sippel requested supplemental briefing on a jurisdictional issue and told the defendants to explain the applicable law without arguing with the court.
“the opportunity to provide supplemental briefing is not an opportunity to be argumentative with the Court. It is an opportunity to assist the Court in determining what the law is and why it is applicable in a particular case to the individual parties.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant FDS’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Carter’s claims under the ADA, the ADEA, and under TitleVII (with the exception of Carter’s retaliation claim) [#22] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to dismiss [#89] is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time [#96] is denied as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Carl Brown’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief from Petitioner’s 924(c) Indictment Count [29] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Nationstar’s motion to dismiss Count II [#16] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to have notice of removal filed as a motion for removal (Docket No. 5) is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Docket No. 6) is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that McDonald’s Corporations Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [21], is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTEHR ORDERED that McDonald’s USA LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [19], is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Jimmy E. Smith, Jr.’s motion for sanctions or alternatively to compel a counteroffer [75] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Jimmy E. Smith, Jr.’s motion for entry of default against Defendant Amanda Watson [77] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of Jason R. Craddock, Sr. to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Jimmy E. Smith, Jr. [78] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to compel and for sanctions [82] is GRANTED in part.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions in this case [80] and [93] are DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Eli Lilly and Company’s motion to dismiss [12] is GRANTED. Plaintiff Patti Jo Graw’s Amended Complaint [6] will be DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to commence this action without prepaying fees or costs [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief [ECF Nos. 6, 7 and 8] are DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 4] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED, and the filing fee is waived.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [ECF No. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED as second or successive.”
In an immigration-delay action, the court ordered a further supplemental brief on a jurisdictional issue that the defendants had not addressed. The order did not decide a pending motion and is retained only as procedural context.
“his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF No. 4] is DENIED AND DISMISSED, without prejudice, as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).”
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 6 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 7 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 4 |
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 Sippel: 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 Sippel with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Sippel, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Sippel's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace