M. Hannah Lauck
How Judge Lauck rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lauck
Mary Hannah Lauck is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Lauck received a commission on June 10, 2014.
Judge Lauck's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lauck, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
A party using generative AI to prepare a filing must disclose that use and certify review of all citations for accuracy.
“they must identify the use of the generative artificial intelligence in the filing and provide a certification that they have reviewed all citations for accuracy.”
Motions
In civil cases before Judge Lauck, a motion is not withdrawn merely because no hearing request was filed.
“No motion will be deemed withdrawn purely based on the absence of a motion requesting a hearing”
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 Lauck decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Santens v. Progressive Gulf Insurance, Lauck held that the insurer owed uninsured-motorist coverage matching the increased liability limit because the insured had never waived or rejected matching coverage.
“The lack of any rejection or waiver drives this Court’s analysis.”
In Marcellus's challenge to Virginia ballot labels for local candidates, Lauck granted the state board summary judgment and denied the challengers' motion after finding no associational right to the requested party label.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (EOF No. 29) and will deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31).”
In Sealed Plaintiff 1 v. Patriot Front, Lauck granted three default-judgment motions after examining jurisdiction, service, venue, and whether the pleaded facts established the civil-rights claims. She explained that the clerk’s entry of default alone did not warrant judgment.
“The Clerk's entry of default does not itself warrant the Court's entry of default judgment.”
Procedural preferences
She enforces the Local Civil Rules strictly: especially Local Rule 56(B), which requires a summary-judgment movant to set out the undisputed material facts with record citations. A movant who scatters citations and omits the required statement (and who also files unverified interrogatories under Rule 33(b)(5)) risks having its motion denied outright or its 'disputes' struck. Practice point: on summary judgment before her, file a proper Local Rule 56(B) statement of undisputed facts and make sure discovery responses are sworn.
“Courts in the Eastern District of Virginia, including this one, weigh adherence to procedural rules seriously. In response to a movant's blatant violation of Local [Civil] Rule 56(B), the Court may deny a motion for summary judgment outright.”
In Rollins's group-life-insurance suit, Lauck denied remand, granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the state-law claims as preempted by ERISA, and gave Rollins leave to amend.
“For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the Motion to Remand, grant the Motions to Dismiss, and grant Rollins leave to amend.”
In Parson v. Alcorn, she denied a preliminary injunction against a party-affiliation statement required for a presidential primary. The plaintiffs did not provide evidence showing a likelihood of success, including evidence of voters deterred beyond the named plaintiffs.
“The circumstances of this case do not allow for a remedy as extraordinary as a preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs provide no evidentiary support for their claims showing a likelihood of success on the merits.”
In Sealed Plaintiff 1's fee request after default judgment, Lauck excluded redundant and unrelated time and reduced the remaining fee award by ten percent in light of the limited relief obtained.
“The Court will therefore further reduce Plaintiffs' attorney's fees award by an additional ten percent given the lack of injunctive relief and the large differential between the damages award and the fee award.”
In Sealed Plaintiff 1 v. Patriot Front, she awarded damages after default judgment but denied a proposed permanent injunction restricting defendants' access to a public park. She found the requested restriction too broad and raised First Amendment concerns.
“Full and permanent restriction of access to a large public park is far too broad and could infringe upon the Defaulting Defendants' First Amendment rights.”
In the reviewed immigration-detention cases, the court required an individualized bond hearing when detainees had been denied any opportunity to seek one; it placed the burden of proving danger or flight risk on the government.
“the probable value of placing the burden of proof on Respondents is especially high.”
Cautions
In Hardney v. City of Richmond, the court dismissed municipal-liability claims where the complaint described alleged police customs in broad terms but did not identify a specific earlier incident supporting the claimed practice. The dismissal was without prejudice.
“Ms. Hardney’s contention that these ‘policies’ consist of a ‘custom’ maintained by the City rests on labels and conclusions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Santens’s cross motion for summary judgment and will deny Progressive’s cross motion for summary judgment.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the Motion to Remand, grant the Motions to Dismiss, and grant Rollins leave to amend.”
“The circumstances of this case do not allow for a remedy as extraordinary as a preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs provide no evidentiary support for their claims showing a likelihood of success on the merits. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (EOF No. 29) and will deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 31).”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court denied Credit One's Motion for Summary Judgment, granted Wood's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and granted Wood's Motion to Exclude.”
“For the reasons articulated below, the Court will grant the Motions.”
“The Court will also grant Plaintiffs' requested declaratory relief but deny their requested injunctive relief.”
“For the reasons articulated above, the Court will award Plaintiffs $347,251.50 in attorney's fees, $48,240.23 in costs, and $2,100 for the preparation of their requests.”
“Because Phoenix received an extensive amount of medical care and simply disagreed with the timing and course of the care, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47) will be GRANTED. Brown's claims and the action will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Court GRANTS Petitioner Jose Francisco Avelar Ramos’ Amended Petition. (ECF No. 6.)”
“the Court will grant the Motion for Preliminary Injunction”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Her district-judge docket (Richmond Division) runs heavily to consumer-finance litigation (Fair Credit Reporting Act and Truth-in-Lending suits against Experian, Equifax, and payday/online lenders), insurance-coverage contract disputes, employment and civil-rights claims, prisoner civil-rights and state habeas petitions, bankruptcy appeals, and personal-injury removals.
- This is a qualitative mix from the sampled dockets, not a counted distribution.
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 Lauck: 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 Lauck with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lauck, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lauck's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace