Fernando Joe Gaitan Jr.
How Judge Gaitan rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gaitan
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Gaitan received a commission on August 2, 1991. Judge Gaitan assumed senior status on January 3, 2014.
Judge Gaitan's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Gaitan'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 Gaitan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Kansas City African Market, Inc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Co., he declined to dismiss the insurer's declaratory-judgment counterclaim because it raised issues beyond the main coverage action.
“the safer course for the court to follow is to deny a request to dismiss a counterclaim for declaratory relief unless there is no doubt that it will be rendered moot by the adjudication of the main action.”
In Emmons v. Bank of America, Gaitan denied remand after applying the rule that formal service, rather than notice alone, starts the removal period. He also disregarded nominally joined parties in assessing removal.
“a defendant is 'required to take action' as a defendant-that is, bound by the thirty-day limit on removal- 'only upon service of a summons or other authority-asserting measure stating the time within which the party served must appear and defend.”
Procedural preferences
In Rolf v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., he deemed the movant's supported facts admitted under Local Rule 56.1(a) after the plaintiff failed to controvert them with evidence, and granted summary judgment.
“[a]ll facts set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.”
In Global Petromarine v. G.T. Sales & Manufacturing, Inc., he provisionally denied a partial summary-judgment motion and ordered fuller briefing on the controlling Missouri indemnity law.
“The Court hereby orders HBD to provide a full briefing containing relevant law from Missouri”
In Zollar v. United States, he denied a Section 2255 motion as untimely and successive without reaching its merits.
“The Court agrees with respondent that movant's motion is time barred and requires certification pursuant to Section 2244. Thus, the Court will not consider movant's motion on its merits because his claims are time barred.”
In one software dispute, the court allowed a late amended complaint after the plaintiffs detailed their discovery diligence and obstacles in reply briefing.
“The Court finds that the additional information provided by plaintiffs in their reply suggestions constitute good cause for their motion to amend their claims after the deadline contained in the Scheduling Order.”
Cautions
In Eternal Investments, L.L.C. v. City of Lee's Summit, he dismissed a substantive-due-process claim that recast a zoning dispute as a federal constitutional violation under the cited circuit standard.
“It is not enough simply to give these state law claims constitutional labels such as 'due process' or 'equal protection' in order to raise a substantial federal question under section 1983.”
In Eternal Investments, Gaitan denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike parts of the answer after finding that the plaintiff had missed its own filing deadline while demanding compliance with the pleading rules from the defendant.
“Plaintiff demands that defendant strictly comply with the pleading rules, but then asks the Court to ignore its own violation of the rules. The Court declines to do so.”
In Vincent Lee v. Kansas City Missouri School District, he applied liberal construction to a pro se pleading but dismissed allegations that lacked historical facts supporting a cognizable claim.
“While a pro se pleading is to be liberally construed, it still must allege some historical facts, which if proven true, would entitle the plaintiff to some legal relief against the named defendant(s) based on some cognizable legal theory.”
In L.S. v. West Platte County R-II School District, he declined to approve a proposed minor settlement because the record did not establish whether the settlement served the child's best interests.
“cannot determine on the record before it if this settlement is in the best interests of L.S.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Texas OUSA's motion to dismiss with prejudice (Doc. No. 226) is GRANTED, and Count II of the Counterclaim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff/counterclaim-defendant Lundy's motion for summary judgment on this claim (Doc. No. 99) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment for Declarations and Avoidance Relief (Doc. No. 101) is DENIED;”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Count D (Doc. No. 104) is DENIED;”
“Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 169) is GRANTED; and”
“Defendants' Motion to Set Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 207) is DENIED as premature.”
“Third-Party defendant's, HBD, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 56) is PROVISIONALLY DENIED.”
“movant's motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED and movant is entitled to no relief.”
“movant's motion for emergency hearing for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 6), and movant's motion in support of issuance of subpoena duces tecum (Doc. No. 5) are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Remand is hereby DENIED (Doc. # 7).”
“the Court hereby GRANTS defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 64)”
“and DENIES AS MOOT defendant's Motion for Sanctions and to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 37(d) (Doc. No. 63).”
“the Court hereby GRANTS defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. # 2).”
“Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Strike Certain Paragraphs of Defendant's Answer is hereby DENIED (Doc. # 17).”
“Accordingly, defendant 's Motion to Amend is hereby DENIED (Doc. # 22).”
“the Court hereby GRANTS defendant's Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's Substantive Due Process Claims (Doc. # 33).”
“Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS Raymore Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 33).”
“Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS Kansas City defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 52).”
“Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS the Board of Election Commissioners Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 49).”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 10).”
“Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 5).”
“Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion to Remand is hereby DENIED (Doc. #8).”
“If plaintiff wishes to amend the Complaint or seek alternative or additional relief due to changed factual circumstances (such as the passage of new City Ordinances), the proper procedure is to file a Motion for Leave to Amend and attach a copy of the proposed Amended Pleading. The Court therefore DENIES plaintiff’s Motion to Expand Preliminary Injunction motion (Doc. # 60) and directs plaintiff to file a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.”
“The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limits for its Reply in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s Motion for the Appointment of S.S. and I.S. as next friends for L.S. (Doc. # 46).”
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 11 | 8 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| 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 Western District of Missouri, not for Judge Gaitan: 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 | 1,429 | 6.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 520 | 5.7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 876 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 19 | 49.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 22.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,429 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,461 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,502 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,738 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,341 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,312 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,485 | 7 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 Gaitan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gaitan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gaitan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace