Joseph Normand Laplante
How Judge Laplante rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Laplante
Joseph Normand Laplante is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Laplante received a commission on December 28, 2007.
Judge Laplante's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Laplante'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 Laplante decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Sig Sauer product case, Laplante dismissed Consumer Protection Act claims because none of the plaintiffs received the alleged misrepresentations in New Hampshire.
“Because none of the plaintiffs received Sig Sauer’s alleged misrepresentations in New Hampshire, the alleged offending conduct did not occur ‘within this state,’ and their CPA claims fail as a matter of law.”
In a voter identification case, he preliminarily enjoined state guidance that went beyond the statute by forbidding officials to consider student IDs as other evidence of identity; the state had offered no independent reason for that restriction.
“The State has offered no independent justification for that broader prohibition.”
Procedural preferences
In the Sig Sauer product case, Laplante allowed joined claims to proceed for the time being while reserving possible severance and transfer before trial.
“For now, the court envisions this case proceeding like a consolidated multi-district litigation, but it will strongly reconsider the possibility of severing the plaintiffs’ claims and transferring them to their home districts for separate trials.”
In Daschbach’s case, Laplante denied Rocket Mortgage’s motion to compel arbitration because the website did not give reasonably conspicuous notice of its hyperlinked terms.
“Based on certain design elements, the website at issue does not place a reasonably prudent internet user on notice of the Terms of Use and arbitration clause.”
In a September 2026 election case, he denied relief for the imminent primary under the election-timing doctrine and left the constitutional merits undecided. The same order treated the later general election as potentially different.
“Because the court bases its denial on Purcell considerations, it does not discuss the merits of the requested injunction.”
In an attorney discipline case, he dismissed a federal constitutional challenge under Younger abstention because the plaintiff could present her defenses in the ongoing state proceeding.
“Because the plaintiff can raise the same federal constitutional issues as defenses in the pending state proceeding”
Cautions
In a commercial lease dispute, Laplante denied summary judgment on the landlord’s contract claim because factual disputes remained over the tenant’s constructive eviction defense.
“The above-listed disputes preclude summary judgment for ZJBV on its breach of contract claim.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ZJBV’s motion for summary judgment is accordingly DENIED.”
“the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED-IN-PART, with respect to Counts 1 and 2 in their entirety and Count 6 in part, as outlined supra Section III.D, and DENIED-IN-PART, with respect to the remaining claims.”
“Lieber’s partial motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“Sig Sauer’s motion to sever and transfer venue is DENIED”
“its motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint as outlined above.”
“Freeman's oral and written motions for judgment of acquittal are GRANTED-IN-PART as to Count 3 and DENIED-IN-PART as to the remaining counts.”
“Freeman's motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Talesha L. Saint-Marc dated August 14, 2024.”
“For the reasons stated, Paulo Products' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“the court grants in part Sig Sauer's motion to dismiss and dismisses Count 8 of the complaint without prejudice. The remainder of Sig Sauer's motion to dismiss is denied.”
“Sig Sauer's motion to sever and transfer is accordingly denied without prejudice to its ability to re-raise similar arguments at a later procedural stage.”
“the court DENIES the defendant's motion to sever and transfer and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part its motion to dismiss.”
“the defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Spaulding defendants' motion is DENIED as to the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims (counts 3 and 4) and GRANTED as to Ashley's and Kevin's negligence claim (count 9).”
“The Auburn defendants' motion is DENIED as to T.F.'s negligence claim against McSweeney (count 8) and GRANTED as to Ashley's and Kevin's negligence claim (count 10).”
“MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 115 Motion for Reconsideration Re: 113 Order on Terminated Motion; denying 116 Motion for Reconsideration Re: 113 Order on Terminated Motion.”
“denying 116 Motion for Reconsideration Re: 113 Order on Terminated Motion. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante.”
“Rowe's motion for reconsideration and motion to amend are DENIED.”
“The court therefore DENIES Cafe Indigo's motion for a preliminary injunction requiring compliance with the audit provision of the 2017 Agreement.”
“the court GRANTS its motion to stay or dismiss Counts 1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint, albeit doing so with prejudice as outlined above.”
“Pearl River's motion to dismiss the complaint is DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled window shows a docket weighted toward substantial commercial and intellectual-property litigation (patent, trademark, labor-management relations) alongside habeas petitions, personal-injury, and a criminal case, consistent with a judge who handles the district's more complex civil matters.
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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 10 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 8 |
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 District of New Hampshire, not for Judge Laplante: 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 | 672 | 33 months |
| Closed with no court action | 89 | 3.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 506 | 41.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 74 | 15.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 672 | 33 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,499 | 49.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 529 | 23.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 313 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 318 | 10.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 335 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 418 | 10.2 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 Laplante with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Laplante, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Laplante's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace