Roseann A. Ketchmark
How Judge Ketchmark rules, drawn from 48 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ketchmark
Roseann Ambrosia Ketchmark is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Ketchmark received a commission on September 14, 2015.
Judge Ketchmark's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ketchmark, 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
Discovery
For a discovery dispute telephone conference, first give opposing counsel a one- to two-page description of the dispute, resolution efforts, and both sides’ legal positions.
“The party requesting the telephone conference must provide opposing counsel with a 1-2 page description”
Discovery
Submit the written dispute description and response to the court at least 24 hours before the discovery conference.
“at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled telephone conference”
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 Ketchmark decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In L.H. v. Independence School District, the court stayed a challenge to a school library policy pending an Eighth Circuit appeal involving a similar policy. It denied pending motions without prejudice to refiling after the stay.
“the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”
She granted a postjudgment receiver request after discovery showed obstructive conduct and asset transfers, and after less drastic collection efforts proved ineffective. The later record changed the result from an earlier denial at the start of collection proceedings.
“Less drastic remedies have proven to be, and will continue to be, ineffective.”
Procedural preferences
In Baca v. City of Parkville, the court treated the Heck bar as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction despite acknowledging that the Eighth Circuit had not decided the issue. It granted the jurisdictional motion after the plaintiff's guilty plea defeated favorable termination and remanded the removed case to state court.
“so long as it applies, Heck implicates the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”
In United States v. James B. Nutter & Co., the court granted a motion to strike some affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim and inadequately pleaded equitable defenses. Because striking a pleading is disfavored, it gave the defendant fourteen days to amend and replead under the Iqbal/Twombly standard.
“striking a party’s pleading is an ‘extreme measure’ that is ‘viewed with disfavor and infrequently granted.’”
Cautions
In Baca v. City of Parkville, the court noted that a Rule 12(c) motion filed ten months after the dispositive motion deadline raised valid timeliness concerns because the defendant had neither sought leave nor adequately shown good cause. It did not decide that motion after granting a separate jurisdictional motion.
“Plaintiff raises valid concerns regarding the timeliness of Defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion – filed ten months after the dispositive motions deadline in the amended scheduling order expired without seeking leave to file out of time or adequately satisfying Rule 16(b)’s ‘good cause’ standard.”
In a 2026 restrictive-covenant dispute, the court denied preliminary relief after a hearing because the asserted loss of customers, goodwill, and reputation had not been shown to pose irreparable harm. It stopped the injunction analysis there.
“On the record before the Court, Plaintiff has not established a sufficient threat of irreparable harm to goodwill or business reputation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED, and this case is remanded to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).”
“The Government’s motion to strike affirmative defenses 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 19, and 22, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of the stay, all other pending motions are DENIED without prejudice to refiling, as appropriate, upon lifting of the stay.”
“This case is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice. All remaining motions are denied as MOOT.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 11) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Erik Bauer and Neal Sawyers (Doc. 62) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ... the case is REMANDED ... but Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff New Prime, Inc.'s verified motion for default judgment (Doc. 30) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Federal Insurance Company’s motion to set aside clerk’s entry of default (Doc. 36) is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”
“Hardwood's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Brewco's Count II will be denied.”
“Hardwood's motion to dismiss Brewco's Count II for failure to state a claim will be denied.”
“Hardwood's motion to strike, or in the alternative, to make more definite statement will be denied.”
“Defendant LM's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Wills' garnishment claim is GRANTED.”
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 | 3 | 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 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Ketchmark: 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 Ketchmark with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ketchmark, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ketchmark's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace