Elizabeth Wilson Hanes
How Judge Hanes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a covenant/real-property dispute she construes a community Declaration narrowly against the developer's commercial use while enforcing it as written: the developer could not run a commercial tree farm on the golf course, and the association could enforce the Declaration's rules.
“It held that the developer could not operate a commercial tree farm on the community's golf course and that the golfing community's community association may enforce the Declaration's rules against the developer.”
Procedural preferences
She enforces contractual exhaustion/remedy prerequisites: she held the association had waived its own claims by failing to exhaust its contractual remedies, and that it could not unilaterally amend the Declaration.
“the district court also held that the community association could not unilaterally amend the Declaration and that it had waived its own claims by failing to exhaust its contractual remedies.”
She will deny premature/over-pleaded filings and reset the posture: striking an amended complaint, denying leave to amend, and denying cross-MSJs without prejudice to allow proper re-briefing before deciding the merits.
“JBWK's [45] Motion for Summary Judgment and the Association's [52] Motion for Summary Judgment are both DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“West Neck Community Association, Inc.'s [35] Motion to Dismiss is DENIED”
“JBWK, LLC's [38] Motion to Strike the Association's Amended Complaint is GRANTED”
“the Association's [43] Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is DENIED”
“JBWK's [45] Motion for Summary Judgment and the Association's [52] Motion for Summary Judgment are both DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The Court will grant in part and deny in part the Association's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 64”
“will grant in part and deny in part JBWK's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 66.”
“The Court's goal in deciding whether to grant leave to supplement is to fairly resolve the parties' underlying dispute. No evidence of prejudice, undue delay, trial inconvenience, futility, or bad faith exists here. Accordingly, the Court will consider the Declarations in its analysis... Berridge's Motion for Leave to File Supplementary Evidence is granted.”
“While Pool Scouts has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, it has not met its burden as to irreparable harm. Accordingly, Pool Scouts' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied.”
“For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Pool Scouts leave to file an amended complaint and the Motion to Dismiss Count IV, ECF No. 21, is denied as moot.”
“For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Pool Scouts' Motion to Dismiss Berridge's Counterclaim.”
“The Court finds leave to amend would be futile and Berridge's motion is denied.”
“Despite the parties' disagreement over whether a valid protective order was entered against—and served upon—Ms. Marinaro, the Court finds that the six factors articulated in Colleton and applied in its order setting aside the entry of default weigh in Ms. Lewis's favor... Accordingly, Ms. Marinaro's Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment, ECF No. 45, is DENIED.”
“the School Board Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, and Ms. Lewis's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 40, are DENIED as moot.”
“Therefore, the Court finds that Ms. Marinaro's request for a representative is premature at this time. Accordingly, Ms. Marinaro's Motion to Appoint Representative, ECF No. 43, is DENIED without prejudice to Ms. Marinaro's right to reassert the motion at a later date, if necessary.”
“Defendant's eighth Motion in Limine to Exclude the testimony of Dr. Filler is GRANTED... Defendant's fourth Motion in Limine to Exclude Work Order #1 is DENIED, and Defendant's fifth Motion in Limine to Exclude Work Order #2 is DENIED as moot given Plaintiff's withdrawal of the exhibit... Defendant's seventh Motion in Limine to Exclude the Brain Map Animation for lack of foundation is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Exclude the PowerPoint Demonstrative is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff made an oral motion at the Final Pretrial Conference to dismiss Defendant Bloomin' Brands—that motion is GRANTED and Defendant Bloomin' Brands is DISMISSED.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court declines to reconsider its Order excluding Dr. Filler as a witness in the upcoming trial, finding that such a sanction was warranted and that no clear error causing manifest injustice existed. Accordingly, Haysbert's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 43, is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 294 days (N = 3).
From the enumerated dockets (illustrative, not a counted population): Hanes's Norfolk/Newport News docket runs to labor/employment (FLSA, BAE Systems, Great Lakes Dredge), maritime/admiralty, consumer (FDCPA/FCRA -- she is a former consumer-litigation attorney), real-property/covenant, prisoner civil-rights and habeas, suits against the United States, and federal criminal matters. She has also sat by designation on the Fourth Circuit (e.g. United States v. Luong, a forced-labor sentencing appeal -- she joined, did not author). Her terminated civil cases tend to run long (median ~330 days; see cohort).
Put Judge Hanes's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Hanes actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Hanes's own signed orders and cites them.