Elizabeth Kay Dillon

United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia district Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 12 signed orders read

How Judge Dillon decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In deciding whether to allow a late amendment that drops a federal claim and effectively defeats removal, the court gave weight to how far the case had actually progressed -- no scheduling order, no discovery, no prior substantive ruling -- rather than treating the timing or motive behind the amendment as disqualifying on its own.

“The court has not issued any scheduling orders or previous substantive rulings; discovery has not started; and no trial date has been set.”

Procedural preferences

On a second attempt to amend a complaint, the court will not accept a shifting, unfocused pleading; it expects the plaintiff to identify and fix the specific deficiencies the court already flagged, and treats a proposed amendment that remains unclear or fails to cure those defects as futile.

“Unfortunately, it has become increasingly more difficult for the court to discern Caldwell's claims with each iteration of his complaint.”

Cautions

In a FOIA case the court draws a firm line between the agency's obligation to search for and produce responsive records and a requester's obligation to actually appeal an adverse response through the agency's own process before suing; failure to exhaust defeats jurisdiction even when the agency's search was reasonable.

“the court will dismiss Crandell's claims as to EDA's responses to PRO 18-12 and PRO 19-06 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction given his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Caldwell v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
7:15-cv-00358 · 2016-08-10
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the court will deny Caldwell's motion and dismiss the case with prejudice.”

Donovan v. Allen
7:21-cv-00017 · 2021-09-28
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint, order the proposed amended complaint filed, and remand the case to state court.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“the court dismisses the defendants' motions to dismiss as moot.”

Torres v. Rector and Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia
3:21-cv-00001 · 2022-03-21
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The court will grant UVA's motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of plaintiff's claims under the ADA and for punitive damages. The court will deny UVA's motion in all other respects and will issue an appropriate order.”

Crandell v. United States
5:21-cv-00050 · 2022-09-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the court will (1) grant the Government's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice as to Crandell's FOIA claims regarding EDA's responses to PRO 18-12 and PRO 19-06 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“grant the Government's motion for summary judgment as to Crandell's FOIA claims regarding EDA's responses to PRO 21-34 and 22-11”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“deny Crandell's motion for partial summary judgment”

Lim v. Tisack
7:16-cv-00029 · 2017-03-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, each of Lim's claims fails to state a plausible claim for relief and his claims must therefore be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).”

Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“The court will therefore deny Lim's motion to reconsider.”

Default judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Those defendants were never served and were therefore dismissed from this action pursuant to Rule 4(m). Accordingly, Lim's motion is denied.”

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 1.81 Acres of Land Owned by Robert M. Jones, et al.
7:19-cv-00151 · 2019-08-21
Motion to exclude expert (plaintiff) Granted

“MVP's Motion to Exclude Testimony by Paul A. Rubin (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED;”

Motion to exclude expert (plaintiff) Granted

“MVP's Motion to Exclude Testimony by L. Steven Noble (Dkt. No. 12) is GRANTED;”

Motion to exclude expert (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“MVP's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Donna Jones regarding value (Dkt. No. 14) is DISMISSED AS MOOT;”

Motion to exclude expert (plaintiff) Granted

“MVP's Motion to Exclude Testimony of Amy E. Hudson (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED;”

Motion in limine (plaintiff) Granted in part

“MVP's Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED with respect to pipeline danger/safety issues. In all other respects, this motion is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and”

Motion to exclude expert (defendant) Denied

“Landowners' Motion to Exclude Testimony by Schweitzer (Dkt. No. 17) is DENIED.”

Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 0.15 Acres of Land, Owned by Frank W. Hale, Flossie I. Hale, Robert Matthew Hamm, and Aimee Chase Hamm
7:19-cv-00181 · 2020-01-22
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“The court will grant MVP's summary judgment motion and vest title to the easement on MVP Parcel No. VA-RO-5748 in a separate order.”

Motion for leave to amend (defendant) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Hamms' motions to amend/correct their initial disclosures and answers to interrogatories (Dkt. No. 16), to stay (Dkt. No. 22), and to continue (Dkt. No. 24) are DENIED.”

United States v. Harold Emanuel Anderson
7:19-cr-00027 · 2020-01-16
Motion to suppress (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, the court will grant Anderson's motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to that search warrant.”

Harrison v. Streeval
7:21-cv-00267 · 2022-03-24
Habeas petition (defendant) Denied

“Thus, the court will grant respondent's motion and dismiss the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.”

Lescs v. City of Winchester
5:19-cv-00061 · 2020-11-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the City's motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the individual defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“There being no genuine issue of material fact, the court will grant Hyde's motion for summary judgment and dismiss, with prejudice, the Fourth Amendment claim regarding Lescs's detention and transportation for a psychological evaluation by defendant Hyde.”

Butters v. James Madison University
5:15-cv-00015 · 2015-11-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Because plaintiff has stated a plausible claim under Title IX, the court will deny JMU's motion to dismiss.”

Doe v. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission
5:17-cv-00097 · 2018-12-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“For all of these reasons, the court will grant in part and deny in part defendant's motion for summary judgment.”

Put Judge Dillon's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Dillon actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Dillon's own signed orders and cites them.