Nanette Kay Laughrey
How Judge Laughrey rules, drawn from 6 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Laughrey no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Laughrey
Nanette Kay Laughrey is an inactive senior judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Laughrey received a commission on August 1, 1996. Judge Laughrey previously served on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, commissioned there on August 1, 1996. Judge Laughrey assumed senior status on August 27, 2011.
How Judge Laughrey decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Raimondo’s suit against Capac State Bank, Judge Laughrey granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on claim-preclusion grounds because three earlier Michigan federal suits against the bank had ended in merits decisions and the new claims arose from the same 1998 events.
“Plaintiff has filed at least three prior lawsuits against Defendant Capac, each of which was based on the April 1998 search, seizure, and subsequent foreclosure. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan is a court of competent jurisdiction, and already rendered a final decision on the merits in each of the prior suits.”
Procedural preferences
In Walker’s employment case, Judge Laughrey granted the defendants summary judgment on retaliation because the record did not show a causal link between her discrimination complaints and termination; the seven-month gap and missing date for another complaint weakened temporal causation.
“As Ms. Walker bears the burden of making her prima facie case, her failure to establish a temporal connection between her complaint and the allegedly retaliatory action dooms her claim.”
A Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is not a second chance to make arguments you could have made before judgment; it is confined to intervening law, newly available evidence, or clear error / manifest injustice. Do not use reconsideration to re-argue the merits or raise new theories.
“Importantly, a motion to reconsider ‘cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the trial court entered final judgment.’”
Cautions
In Carroll v. DST Systems and related proceedings, the court confirmed ERISA arbitration awards and directed entry of judgment for the claimants. It rejected DST's request for forbearance because DST had not established a statutory basis to vacate the awards; its prior consent to arbitration also weighed against its position.
“For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's motion to confirm the arbitration award (Doc. 1) is GRANTED.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. # 70] is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 71] is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 81] is GRANTED.”
“Thus, there is neither a clear error of law or manifest injustice and Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Reconsider or Alter or Amend Judgment [Doc. # 95] is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Capac's motion to dismiss, Doc. 13, is granted.”
“For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's motion to confirm the arbitration award (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in each Plaintiff's favor against DST in the amounts listed below, with post-judgment interest.”
“Ms. Walker's motion for summary judgment, [Doc. 68], is DENIED and Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Doc. 71, is GRANTED in full.”
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 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Laughrey no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.