Roseann A. Ketchmark
How Judge Ketchmark decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Will stay a case to await a controlling appellate decision when a materially similar issue is pending before the Eighth Circuit, framing it as judicial economy under the Landis docket-control power. If a near-identical case is up on appeal, expect a stay rather than a merits ruling.
“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.”
Procedural preferences
Treats subject-matter jurisdiction as raisable at any time and will reach a late jurisdictional motion even when an alternative Rule 12(c) motion is untimely; in § 1983 cases she treats the Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination bar as jurisdictional in this circuit. A guilty plea to even a lesser/ordinance offense can defeat a later § 1983 wrongful-prosecution claim.
“so long as it applies, Heck implicates the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”
On a Rule 12(f) motion to strike she applies the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard to affirmative defenses, requiring specific facts tied to each defense, but — because striking is disfavored — typically grants leave to replead rather than striking outright. Plead affirmative defenses with supporting facts, and drop 'failure to state a claim' as a standalone affirmative defense.
“striking a party’s pleading is an “extreme measure” that is “viewed with disfavor and infrequently granted.””
Cautions
She flags Rule 16(b) 'good cause' problems with dispositive motions filed long after the scheduling-order deadline; here a Rule 12(c) motion filed ten months late drew an express timeliness concern (though she resolved the case on the always-available jurisdictional ground instead). Do not file dispositive motions out of time without seeking leave and showing diligence.
“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.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 1Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Preliminary injunction N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”
“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.”