Zachary M. Bluestone
How Judge Bluestone rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bluestone
Zachary Maxwell Bluestone is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Bluestone received a commission on July 24, 2025.
Judge Bluestone's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Bluestone's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Bluestone decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Longo v. CCM Partners, the court remanded after the plaintiff revised her affidavit to cap recovery at $75,000, including attorney fees. It rejected the defendant's argument that the affidavit also needed to bind her lawyers expressly, reasoning that the fee statute awarded fees to the party and counsel remained bound by the duty of candor.
“the Court finds that the revised affidavit ensures that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, thereby requiring a remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
In one employment-discrimination ruling, evidence that a stated termination reason might be pretextual kept the disability-discrimination counts for trial, while other claims did not survive summary judgment.
“was pretextual, so the Court must deny summary judgment on the disability-discrimination claims.”
In one vehicle service contract dispute, the court enforced arbitration clauses after considering how the buyers received the contracts and whether the refund period allowed them to reject the terms.
“the VSCs are not unconscionable under either North Carolina or Illinois law, meaning that the Court can and will enforce them here.”
In a rideshare driver’s arbitration dispute, the court sent challenges to the contract’s validity to the arbitrator because the driver did not challenge the delegation clause itself. It also assessed the transportation worker exception by the work of rideshare drivers as a class, rather than the driver’s individual interstate trips.
“the presence of a valid delegation provision in the contract, see Doc. 14-1 at 28, which Pilak has not challenged, means that these questions are reserved for an arbitrator.”
Procedural preferences
In Werner, Judge Bluestone denied remand without prejudice because the plaintiff’s declaration did not establish to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy was below $75,000; it did not unequivocally limit recovery and the pleadings also sought fees and other relief.
“Mark’s declaration does not unequivocally affirm that he will not collect an amount in excess of $75,000.”
In Estate of Moore v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, the court struck an amended complaint filed without consent or leave after defendants moved to dismiss. It favored measuring Rule 15(a)'s 21-day window from the earliest defensive action, but explained that the amendment was improper even under the more permissive approach because it changed allegations against defendants outside that window.
“the Court must strike the amended pleading as improper because Plaintiffs had neither leave nor consent.”
In the related Charter 401(k) suits, Judge Bluestone granted an agreed consolidation for all purposes, citing common factual and legal questions and the risk of inconsistent decisions. Local Rule 4.03 assigned the motion to the judge in the lower-numbered case.
“the Court grants Charter’s motion to the extent that it seeks consolidation, and it does so for all purposes, including pre-trial motions and trial.”
In one removed case, Bluestone remanded because the removing defendant lacked consent from all properly joined defendants. A possible federal question did not cure that removal defect.
“action must return to the original forum, even if a federal claim does exist.”
In one removal dispute, the court treated the original jurisdictionally deficient notice as controlling after a defendant filed an amended notice without first seeking leave. The case was remanded.
“the original Notice of Removal is the operative pleading for purposes of determining jurisdiction in this matter.”
Cautions
In Henreid v. Kodner Watkins, the court ordered the plaintiff to attend a deposition and sanctioned him $1,775 for missing the original deposition. It reserved the remaining discovery disputes and sanction requests for a later hearing.
“the Court grants the motion to compel Henreid to appear for a deposition and sanctions Henreid $1,775 for his failure to appear at his original deposition.”
In Caldwell v. Steiner, the court dismissed an employment discrimination suit without prejudice after the plaintiff acknowledged naming improper defendants and failed to effect service.
“Because Plaintiff Reva Caldwell sued several improper defendants by her own admission and otherwise failed to effect service, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Longo’s [21] second motion to remand, DENIES as moot Longo’s [25] motion to extend time to file a response to the motion to compel arbitration, and DENIES without prejudice CCM Partners’s [27] motion to extend time to file a reply to the motion to compel arbitration.”
“DENIES as moot Longo’s [25] motion to extend time to file a response to the motion to compel arbitration”
“DENIES without prejudice CCM Partners’s [27] motion to extend time to file a reply to the motion to compel arbitration”
“Because Plaintiff Reva Caldwell sued several improper defendants by her own admission and otherwise failed to effect service, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice.”
“the Court grants the Motion to Consolidate Cases in part and grants the motions to appoint counsel as orally modified.”
“the Court grants the motion to compel Henreid to appear for a deposition and sanctions Henreid $1,775 for his failure to appear at his original deposition. The Court will consider the remaining discovery disputes and all other sanction issues at the status hearing on March 17, 2026.”
“Additionally, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ [67] Motion to Deny Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the State’s [41] Motion for Sanctions and [46] Motion to Alter Judgment.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ [82] [84] [86] [88] [124] motions to dismiss insofar as they seek to transfer to the Southern District of Illinois for improper venue. The Court defers ruling on the substantive motion to dismiss and all other motions so that the transferee court may address these issues in the first instance.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff Mark Werner’s [11] Motion to Remand without prejudice.”
“the Court DISMISSES this action because it plainly appears that Petitioner Marianela Perez Rodriguez is not entitled to relief”
“DENIES her [2] Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as moot.”
“Court DENIES Petitioner Christopher J. Potter’s [1] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus”
“moot his [17] Motion to be Released on Recognizance and/or Surety, [18] Motion for Leave of Court for Requesting Discovery, [19] Motion to Prevent Transfer of Petitioner, and [22] Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“Court GRANTS Plaintiff Darius Joshghani’s [39] Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to his disability status and his reasonable mitigation of losses.”
“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant ServiceSource, Inc.’s [42] Motion for Summary Judgment, with Counts III (MHRA Discrimination) and VIII (ADA Discrimination) the only claims remaining for trial.”
“Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Misty and Ryan Goodwin’s [47] Motion to Remand Case to State Court”
“GRANTS IN PART Defendant MHTC’s [45] Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Remand to the extent that MHTC seeks remand.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 269 days (N = 15).
- His docket is dominated by 2026-filed civil matters (employment / Title VII and ADA, Section 1983 civil-rights and prisoner suits, ERISA, product-liability and personal-injury) plus a steady criminal docket, most still pending.
- The 9 grounded dockets skew toward employment-discrimination and Section 1983 civil-rights suits and a consolidated ERISA / student-loan-servicer class action, consistent with the written-order record.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Bluestone: 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 Bluestone with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bluestone, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bluestone's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace