Vicki Lynn Miles-LaGrange
How Judge Miles-LaGrange rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Miles-LaGrange no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Miles-LaGrange
Vicki Miles-LaGrange served on the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, she received her commission on November 28, 1994. She took inactive senior status on November 5, 2018 and no longer hears cases.
How Judge Miles-LaGrange decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a race-discrimination suit, Miles-LaGrange found plausible the plaintiff’s allegation that he was fired for his efforts to hire and promote African American employees.
“The Court finds that plaintiffs alleged claim that he was terminated because of his efforts in hiring and promoting African-Americans within American Fidelity Assurance Company is sufficient to set forth a plausible race discrimination claim.”
In an arbitration challenge, Miles-LaGrange found the proceeding fundamentally fair because the plaintiffs had an opportunity to brief and argue matters before the panel.
“Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that plaintiffs were provided with a fundamentally fair arbitration proceeding in that they were provided with the opportunity to fully brief and argue various matters before the arbitration panel.”
Procedural preferences
In Metzger v. American Fidelity, Miles-LaGrange found the insurer had shown that information about out-of-state insureds fell outside the requested punitive-damages discovery. She allowed the request as to in-state claims.
“Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that defendant AFA has met its burden of showing the requested information on out-of-state non-parties is outside the scope of discovery.”
In Swanson v. Guthrie Independent School District, Miles-LaGrange granted judgment on the parents’ RFRA claim after finding they had not shown that denial of part-time public school attendance substantially burdened a sincerely held religious belief. The required prima facie showing therefore failed before the burden shifted to the district.
“Plaintiffs have simply failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the threshold requirements to state a prima facie free exercise claim under RFRA.”
Cautions
In a product-liability suit, Miles-LaGrange declined to impose a duty on Wyeth and Schwarz toward plaintiffs with whom they had no relationship, finding such a duty unreasonable as a matter of public policy.
“Given these defendants have no relationship with plaintiffs in the instant case, the Court finds that holding defendants Wyeth and Schwarz liable under the circumstances would ‘extend the concept of duty beyond reason and good sense’ as a matter of public policy.”
In a constitutional injunction dispute, Miles-LaGrange found the public’s interest in protecting individual constitutional rights outweighed its interest in carrying out voters’ will.
“While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, for the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant American Fidelity Assurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement [docket no. 8} as follows: 1. The Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs gender discrimination claim, DISMISSES without prejudice plaintiffs gender discrimination claim, and GRANTS plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint as to his gender discrimination claim. Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to file an Amended Complaint, and 2. The Court DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs age and racial discrimination claims.”
“For reasons set forth in detail above, the Court DENIES plaintiff Metzger’s motion to compel as to Interrogatory No. 1 and Request for Production No. 1 to the extent that it relates to out-of-state claims and GRANTED as relates to in-state claims [docket no. 217], IT IS SO ORDERED.”
“For the reasons set forth in detail above, the Court hereby DENIES ‘Plaintiffs Motion For Class Certification’ [docket no. 85].”
“For the reasons set forth in detail above, the Court VACATES the Bankruptcy Court’s February 17, 2006 Order granting Pan-American’s motion for summary judgment and REMANDS this action for further proceedings consistent with this Order. On remand, the Bankruptcy Court should grant the Estate’s motion for summary judgment.”
“Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, or In the Alternative Bifurcate Liberty Mutual Insurance Company [docket no. 19] should be, and now hereby is, DENIED in its entirety.”
“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award [docket no. 1] is DENIED, and defendant’s Cross-Motions to Confirm Arbitration Award [docket nos. 6 and 8] are GRANTED. Furthermore, defendant’s request for attorney fees is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction [doc. no. 12] is GRANTED. This action is dismissed without prejudice.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment [docket no. 29] and GRANTS defendant Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment [docket no 28]”
“Accordingly, the Court finds that Shelter’s Motion for Summary Judgment or In the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [docket no. 26] should be, and now hereby is, DENIED in its entirety.”
“Based upon the foregoing, the Court 1) GRANTS defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket # 18] which the Court has converted to a motion for summary judgment in its entirety; 2) DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket # 28]; and 3) DEEMS MOOT the Motion for Summary Judgment of the Individual Defendants Based On Qualified Immunity [Docket # 38].”
“Accordingly, Farmers’ Motion for Summary Judgment [docket no. 34] must be, and hereby is, DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby DENIES defendants Pliva, Barr, Actavis and Actavis-Elizabeth’s motions to dismiss and GRANTS defendants Wyeth and Schwarz’ motion for summary judgment.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 273.5 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 83.5 days (N = 8).
The ten sampled civil cases were all filed in early 2010 and terminated between 2010 and 2012. Their median duration was about 274 days, but this small historical cohort is not a career-wide estimate.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Miles-LaGrange was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2020.
| 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 |
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 Miles-LaGrange 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.