Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
How Judge Limbaugh rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Limbaugh
Stephen Nathaniel Limbaugh, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Limbaugh received a commission on August 1, 2008. Judge Limbaugh assumed senior status on August 1, 2020.
Judge Limbaugh's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Limbaugh, 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
Send chambers a paper courtesy copy when exhibits to a motion or memorandum exceed 50 pages.
“In both civil and criminal cases, parties shall submit a paper courtesy copy to chambers of exhibits to motions and/or memoranda if the exhibits exceed 50 pages.”
Motions
Use 13-point Times New Roman or a comparable font for motions and memoranda.
“Please use Times New Roman 13 point (or a comparable font) for the text of all motions and memoranda.”
Sealing
A proposed protective order for sealed material must state when the seal will be lifted or the material returned.
“Proposed protective orders submitted to the Court for approval which contemplate the filing of a file or documents under seal must contain a date certain on which the seal will be lifted or the documents returned to 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 Limbaugh decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Lowe’s slip-and-fall case, Judge Limbaugh considered the parties’ evidence and found no factual basis for a claim against Lutes, who was not employed there on the incident date. He found Winfrey’s absence that day insufficient to establish fraudulent joinder and remanded the case.
“there is no reasonable basis in fact or law supporting a claim against Lutes, who — by virtue of his not even being employed by Lowe’s on the date of the incident, has no connection at all to the incident. Winfrey, on the other hand, may be properly joined, so his joinder is not fraudulent”
In Covington v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Limbaugh granted a personal-jurisdiction motion against 53 non-Missouri plaintiffs and denied remand after their dismissal left complete diversity.
“defendants’ 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss (#4) is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (#14) is denied because the Court has proper subject matter jurisdiction in this action.”
Procedural preferences
In Gustafson v. SAP America, the parties submitted the sales incentive plan underlying a commission claim on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court considered the plan because the pleading necessarily embraced it, found the commission claim plausible, and denied dismissal.
“Because the parties have briefed the sufficiency of plaintiff’s claim based on the plan and that document is necessarily embraced by the pleadings, the Court will consider the plan in making its determination.”
In The Precinct, Inc. v. MWS, LLC, Limbaugh denied the plaintiff's default-judgment motion because no Clerk's entry of default preceded it and allowed the defendant's late answer.
“Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment must be denied on the basis that an entry of default from the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Rule 55(a) is a prerequisite to and must precede the grant of a default judgment under Rule 55(b).”
Title VII claims not raised in the EEOC charge are unexhausted: a race-only charge does not exhaust later sex or national-origin claims.
“None of the claims raised in plaintiff’s amended complaint were raised in his charge of discrimination before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (‘EEOC’) and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (‘MCHR’). The charge plaintiff filed with the EEOC and MCHR refers only to claims of discrimination based on race—not on sex or national origin.”
Cautions
In the discovery dispute, Judge Limbaugh granted the defendants’ sanctions motion, awarded fees incurred in seeking the plaintiff’s deposition, and gave the plaintiff one final chance to appear. The order warned that another failure would result in dismissal.
“Defendants are awarded attorneys fees expended in their effort to obtain plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants shall file an affidavit with this Court within seven (7) days detailing the amount of fees requested.”
Leave to amend (Rule 15(a)) is refused when the movant offers no reason justifying a late amendment; a pro se plaintiff who waited two years with no explanation was denied and pointed to filing a separate suit.
“plaintiff has offered no reason why justice requires that he be permitted to amend his complaint now, after two years have passed. Plaintiff is reminded he may file a complaint bringing any new, timely claims in a separate lawsuit.”
In one post-conviction case, he denied reconsideration that repeated arguments he had already rejected, while allowing a limited extension for a notice of appeal on a separate showing of good cause.
“The Court was unpersuaded by these arguments then and is unpersuaded now.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff’s motion to remand is granted. Defendant Lutes and Winfrey’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.”
“Defendant Lutes and Winfrey’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF #12) is DENIED and defendant’s second motion for leave to file answer out of time (ECF #17) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant SAP America, Inc.’s motion to dismiss count I of the first amended complaint (ECF #18) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant SAP America, Inc.’s motion to dismiss (ECF# 8) is denied as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (#4) is GRANTED. The claims of all plaintiffs other than Annette Covington are dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (#4) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to remand (#14) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to stay or motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery (#16) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (#32) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for documents and to stay discovery (#33) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for sanctions (#34) is DENIED at this time.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to amend complaint (#36) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (#33) is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for sanctions and request for extension of the summary judgment deadline by defendants (#39) is GRANTED. Defendants are awarded attorneys fees expended in their effort to obtain plaintiff’s deposition.”
“IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to amend the case management order (#40, #43) are DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case [ECF No. 21] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Reverse and Remand (Doc. 17) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to reconsider [Doc. 25] is DENIED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ste. Genevieve County Memorial Hospital's motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 17, 19, 21) are GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Rolla Cycles, Inc. d/b/a Stahlman Powersports' Motion to Reconsider [Doc. 44] is DENIED.”
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 32 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 34 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 34 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 33 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 28 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 25 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 25 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 25 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 13 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 6 |
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 Limbaugh: 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 Limbaugh with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Limbaugh, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Limbaugh's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace