Landya Marie Boyer McCafferty
How Judge McCafferty rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge McCafferty
Landya B. McCafferty is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge McCafferty received a commission on December 17, 2013.
Judge McCafferty's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge McCafferty'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 McCafferty decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On Title IX and gender-identity discrimination, she found the state's attempt to distinguish Title IX's 'on the basis of sex' language from Title VII's 'because of sex' language (at issue in Bostock) unpersuasive, extending Bostock's reasoning to hold a categorical ban on transgender girls playing girls' sports likely violates Title IX.
“The court fails to see any meaningful difference between these two phrases and the State has not articulated any.”
In a consumer-protection RESPA dispute, she found persuasive a line of cases holding that a servicer cannot indefinitely delay a homeowner's standing to sue simply by withholding a formal 'confirmation' letter, reasoning that a stricter rule would let servicers control the timing of their own liability.
“Were SPS correct about its interpretation of the word ‘confirmed’ in the regulation, servicers could avoid liability under RESPA by willfully refusing to consider a plaintiff's ownership interest despite clear and uncontradicted evidence thereof.”
Procedural preferences
In Doe v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, McCafferty denied a former student’s preliminary-injunction motion because he had not shown likely irreparable harm. She considered his assent to a nearly two-month wait for the hearing and the late disclosure of the April return date; she did not reach the merits factors.
“Doe's own delay in asserting to the court that he in fact hopes to return to school on April 11 suggests that he will not actually suffer irreparable harm if he is not allowed to return by that date.”
In a housing discrimination suit against the City, McCafferty held that allegations of unclear cure instructions and shifting requirements supported an inference of discriminatory purpose at the pleading stage.
“Construing these allegations in plaintiffs’ favor, it is reasonable to infer that the City’s lack of clear instructions to cure, and subsequent goalpost-moving, are both evidence that the City’s scrutiny and enforcement were motivated, at least in part, by a discriminatory purpose.”
Cautions
In Ortolano v. City of Nashua, McCafferty declined to consider competing affidavits on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and declined to convert it to summary judgment. She explained that a properly supported Rule 56 motion would identify material factual disputes through concise statements and record citations.
“The court declines to consider the affidavits and exhibits at this stage of the litigation ... The court also declines to convert this motion into one for summary judgment, as a properly supported motion under Rule 56 would provide the court with concise statements and record citations as to genuine factual issues in material dispute.”
In a hospital’s Medicaid overpayment suit, McCafferty preliminarily enjoined the state commissioner from recouping alleged overpayments and reallocating another hospital’s overpayments to the plaintiff while the case proceeded.
“The Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services is hereby enjoined from recouping alleged DSH overpayments from plaintiff pending the resolution of this action on the merits.”
In a product injury case, the judge denied a request for more discovery before summary judgment when the plaintiff had already learned that his injury involved a different component from the one alleged and had not sought to amend.
“The court sees no basis on which to spare Duca from his own lack of diligence.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Doe's motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. no. 3).”
“SPS's motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 24) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth herein.”
“Feoli and Inception's motion to dismiss (doc. no. 31) is granted as to Count 10 (IIED) and denied as to Count 8 (defamation).”
“Moving defendants' partial motion to dismiss (doc. no. 7) is granted in part and denied without prejudice in part as follows...”
“the City's motion to dismiss (doc. no. 8) is hereby granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to Count III for IIED, and denied as to Counts I & II for discrimination under the FHAA and the ADA.”
“At the conclusion of the hearing the court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. no. 16).”
“The Commissioner's motion to dismiss (doc. no. 19) is granted as to Counts I and III but denied as to Counts II and IV.”
“Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. no. 2) is granted as follows...”
“The defendants' motion for summary judgment (doc. 79) is granted.”
“Doe's cross motion for summary judgment (doc. 81) is denied.”
“Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. no. 7) is granted.”
“The defendants’ motion to dismiss (document 18) is denied.”
“The amended motion to enforce (doc. no. 20) is granted.”
“Skip’s motion to dismiss (doc. no. 30) is denied.”
“Pentair’s motion for summary judgment (doc. no. 25) is granted. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled windows show a docket typical of a generalist district judge: Social Security disability appeals, prisoner and post-conviction habeas petitions, foreclosure and consumer-finance removals, employment and civil-rights suits, plus (from 2018 on) a large share of a nationwide hernia-mesh products-liability multidistrict litigation centered in this district.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 161 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 161 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 227 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 237 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 400 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1,435 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2,176 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2,005 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 1,627 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1,207 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 794 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 437 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 116 |
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 McCafferty: 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 McCafferty with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge McCafferty, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge McCafferty's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace