Elizabeth Wilson Hanes
How Judge Hanes rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hanes
Elizabeth Wilson Hanes is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Hanes received a commission on August 5, 2022.
Judge Hanes's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Hanes'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 Hanes decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In West Neck Community Association v. JBWK, Hanes held that operating a commercial tree farm on the golf course violated the community Declaration’s residential and recreational use restrictions. She granted the association summary judgment on that issue.
“On that basis, JBWK’s use of the Property violates the Restrictions and Rules.”
In a patent-term-adjustment challenge, she upheld the agency rule after reading the statute’s delegation to permit the Patent Office to identify applicant delays.
“The USPTO appropriately followed the text of the PTA Statute when making the Other Paper Regulation, and therefore its decisions concerning this rule are not contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”
In Cottrell, Hanes allowed the shipowner’s contribution or indemnity theory for maintenance and cure payments to proceed against the equipment manufacturer.
“JPW’s Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore DENIED with respect to Cottrell’s claim for contribution or indemnity regarding maintenance and cure damages.”
Procedural preferences
In West Neck Community Association v. JBWK, Hanes struck an amended complaint, denied leave to amend, and denied both initial summary judgment motions without prejudice. She directed the parties to return for a status conference before renewed motions.
“JBWK's [45] Motion for Summary Judgment and the Association's [52] Motion for Summary Judgment are both DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
In an immigration-detention case involving a person already present in the United States, she applied 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), found detention without a bond hearing unlawful, and ordered a hearing within ten days.
“Petitioner’s continued detention without a bond hearing is unlawful and violates Petitioner’s due process rights.”
Cautions
In Walsh, Hanes required an explanation of why a money judgment would not suffice before ordering separate restitutionary relief under the FLSA.
“Secretary does not explain why a money judgment is insufficient to serve the purposes of the statute as discussed by Sabine Irrigation.”
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.”
“For these reasons, the Court will GRANT the Petition”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the Corps’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 17, and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend, Dkt. No. 36.”
“For the reasons stated above, Syngenta’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 43, is DENIED, and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 47, is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated above, Chesapeake’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 13, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Count I of the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order and Corrective Notice, ECF No. 26.”
“the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 14, be GRANTED, and that the Petition, Dkt. No. 1, be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 66 days (N = 12).
- The sampled Norfolk and Newport News matters include labor and employment, maritime, consumer-credit, real-property, prisoner civil-rights, habeas, suits against the United States, and federal criminal cases.
- A 14-case late-2023 cohort had a median filing-to-termination interval of about 330 days, but that convenience sample is too small and posture-dependent to establish a general timing expectation.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, not for Judge Hanes: 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 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,204 | 5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,299 | 4.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 493 | 8.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 15 | 19.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,011 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,613 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,194 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,134 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,152 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,860 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,267 | 5.9 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 Hanes with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hanes, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hanes's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace