David Gregory Kays
How Judge Kays decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On removal/remand he applies the Eighth Circuit framework strictly and follows it even against the default tilt toward remand: he recites that doubts are resolved in favor of remand, yet denied remand where post-remand joinder of diverse necessary parties created genuinely new CAFA grounds. A remand motion that re-argues a prior remand will fail unless the post-remand record changed.
“A second removal, however, is not based on the same grounds where the post-remand pleadings or conduct of the parties subsequently make the case removable.”
Treats subject-matter jurisdiction as the threshold he reaches first and will raise sua sponte; Rooker-Feldman challenges to state foreclosure/unlawful-detainer judgments get dismissed without reaching the requested relief.
“The threshold question for the Court in this case and in every case is whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute; that is, whether the Court is authorized or possesses the power to adjudicate the lawsuit.”
Procedural preferences
Will grant a motion to enforce a settlement only on clear and convincing evidence of a true meeting of the minds; an acceptance that misses the offer's deadline or adds terms (not a mirror image) is not enough. Frame settlement-enforcement motions with proof of an unequivocal, timely, mirror-image acceptance.
“Specific performance of a settlement agreement is not appropriate ‘if it is doubtful whether there has ever been a meeting of minds or a full and complete understanding on all the essential terms of the contract sought to be enforced.’”
Enforces Daubert/Rule 702 by excluding expert opinion that crosses into statutory interpretation or legal conclusions; experts may address industry standards but not tell the court what the law means. Keep expert reports to facts and professional standards, not legal analysis.
“expert testimony on legal matters is not admissible because matters of law are for the trial judge.”
Cautions
Repetitive post-judgment motions rehashing decided arguments are summarily denied, and a pro se litigant who keeps filing them is warned of Rule 11 sanctions and possible filing restrictions. Do not relitigate a ruled issue by re-motion.
“Plaintiff is warned that continuing to file frivolous motions in this case—i.e., motions to vacate the Court’s judgment or to allow him to relitigate this case—may result in (1) the imposition of sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and/or the Court’s inherent authority; or (2) restrictions on Plaintiff’s filing privileges in this case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED. Because removal was proper, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is also DENIED.”
“Because portions of Mr. McAllister’s expert opinion impermissibly engage in statutory interpretation and legal analysis, the motion is GRANTED.”
“This case is STAYED, and the parties shall issue a joint stipulation of dismissal or a status update on or before August 1, 2021. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Because Defendants have failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the parties reached an agreement, the motion is DENIED.”
“it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hays’s Report and Recommendation be ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 32) is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Accordingly, the Administrator’s motion (Doc. 269) is GRANTED IN PART. The Estate of John Timothy Donegan is substituted for Relator John Timothy Donegan on all claims except Count IV, which is dismissed.”
“This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions are summarily DENIED. Defendant’s motion for leave to file a sur reply to Plaintiff’s motion for recusal, ECF No. 86, is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.”
“For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.”
“For the forgoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Cox’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 133) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Put Judge Kays's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Kays actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Kays's own signed orders and cites them.