Mark Douglas Harpool
How Judge Harpool rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Harpool
M. Douglas Harpool is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Harpool received a commission on March 28, 2014. Judge Harpool assumed senior status on February 4, 2026.
Judge Harpool's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Harpool, 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
Trial
Opening statements are limited to 20 minutes per side.
“Opening statements will be limited to twenty (20) minutes for each side”
Trial
Show a proposed opening-statement visual aid or exhibit to opposing counsel and obtain agreement before using it.
“No visual aid or exhibit shall be used during an opening statement unless opposing counsel has been shown the visual aid or exhibit and has agreed”
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 Harpool decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Sherman Act pleading dispute, he allowed a market-definition claim to proceed because defining the relevant market required factual inquiry. A party challenging market boundaries at the dismissal stage should address why the pleaded facts fail even before discovery.
“Eighth Circuit courts are particularly reluctant to dismiss an antitrust suit at the pleadings stage, as 'proper market definition can be determined only after a factual inquiry into the commercial realities faced by consumers.'”
In Goforth’s Sherman Act case, Judge Harpool granted summary judgment because the claim should have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim in the first arbitration; having resolved the case on that ground, he declined to reach res judicata.
“The Court, having granted summary judgment based on Plaintiffs having to bring their claim as a compulsory counterclaim in the first arbitration and in the interest of judicial efficiency, need not proceed on the issue of res judicata.”
Procedural preferences
In Winesburg, Harpool noted that the plaintiff did not answer the defendants’ contract argument and granted summary judgment on the unjust enrichment count because he agreed that the contract precluded it.
“Plaintiff failed to respond to this argument in her opposition. This Court agrees with Defendants that the contract between Plaintiff and Defendants precludes Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment allegation in Count Three.”
In Winesburg’s overtime case, Judge Harpool denied summary judgment on the FLSA and Missouri wage claims because the parties disputed whether the office manager’s actual duties involved independent judgment or were ministerial. He granted judgment on the separate unjust-enrichment count.
“this Court finds that material disagreement exists between the parties related to the nature of Plaintiff's professional duties as an office manager at the Dealership, thereby precluding summary judgment.”
In Otey’s mortgage-servicing case, Judge Harpool allowed the contract claim to proceed but dismissed the equitable-accounting count because the complaint alleged no fiduciary relationship or complex account, and dismissed the punitive-damages count without prejudice for lack of an independent willful tort.
“The relationship between borrower and lender is a debtor-creditor, not a fiduciary relationship.”
In Priolo, Judge Harpool denied EquipmentShare’s Rule 12(f) motion to strike the plaintiff’s summary-judgment materials because those materials were not pleadings. He allowed a revised opposition and permitted the defendant to raise its evidentiary objections in a reply.
“For the reasons stated, the Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Declaration and Other Inadmissible Portions of her Factual Statements and Responses is DENIED.”
For detention after termination of parole, he required an individualized custody review where no bond hearing or other review was available. The remedy in this order was a bond hearing within ten days or release.
“Respondents are ORDERED to grant Petitioner a bond hearing within ten (10) days of this Order or to release him from custody.”
Cautions
In Winesburg v. Stephanie Morris Nissan, the court denied two defendants' motions to dismiss wage claims. It rejected one defendant's description of another case as having nearly identical allegations because the earlier complaint lacked the detailed employment control allegations at issue here.
“This demonstrates, rather clearly, that Defendant Howard's claim about identical language is meritless.”
In Hershey v. Curators of the University of Missouri, the court dismissed state law claims under the Campus Free Expression Act without prejudice. It found that the statute did not expressly waive Missouri's Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal court, while allowing certain federal claims against individuals to proceed.
“The CEFA does not contain 'the most express language' or 'overwhelming implication' that it intends to waive its immunity in federal courts.”
In an immigration habeas fee dispute, he treated a later controlling appellate ruling as substantial justification for the government’s earlier position, even though the petitioner had prevailed on the writ. Check intervening appellate authority before seeking fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
“the fee motion must be denied.”
A prisoner’s work injury claim could not proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the inmate accident compensation scheme was the exclusive remedy. A claimant in that position should examine the compensation procedure before filing a tort claim.
“prisoners cannot bring claims relating to workplace injuries under the FTCA. Instead, the exclusive remedy for such claims is embodied in 18 U.S.C. section 4126.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 69) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For foregoing reasons, Defendants Morris and Howard's Motions to Dismiss are DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count I – Breach of Contract is DENIED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count II – Petition to Determining Amounts Due is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count III – Punitive Damages for Breach is DENIED.”
“For foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.”
“Also before this Court are Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for judicial notice of two relevant arbitration awards, which this Court GRANTS, and motion for extension of time for amended pleadings, which this court finds as MOOT, since Defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby denied.”
“...and motion for extension of time for amended pleadings, which this court finds as MOOT, since Defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Summary Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants.”
“Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Summary judgment is denied as to Counts One and Two, but granted in favor of Defendants as to Count Three.”
“To the extent Plaintiff believes her opposition reflects her own summary judgment motion, such a motion is DENIED.”
“For the reasons discussed above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Case is DENIED.”
“For the reasons discussed above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Count I - Unjust Enrichment and Count II - Injunctive Relief.”
“For the reasons stated, the Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Declaration and Other Inadmissible Portions of her Factual Statements and Responses is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED as follows.”
“Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED as follows.”
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 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 13 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 10 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 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 Western District of Missouri, not for Judge Harpool: 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 Harpool with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Harpool, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Harpool's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace