Mary Kay Lanthier
How Judge Lanthier rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lanthier
Mary Kay Lanthier is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Lanthier received a commission on September 12, 2024.
Judge Lanthier's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Lanthier'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 Lanthier decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a mandatory-injunction dispute, she found that the alleged financial harm did not make the required strong showing of irreparable injury because a damages award after trial could compensate it.
“These alleged damages are insufficient to make a strong showing of irreparable harm given that a monetary award following trial would provide adequate compensation.”
In a multi-motion third-party-complaint dismissal ruling, applies the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard consistently across near-identical motions from several movers, distinguishing them on whether the pleading ties the specific mover to specific deficient work rather than treating similarly-worded motions as fungible; a bare conclusory tie to a general defect category is not enough to survive.
“Neither the Third-Party SAC nor the Second Amended Complaint (incorporated by the Third-Party SAC) pleads any plausible factual allegations that Jarvis deficiently performed any work in the Development.”
In Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Arel, she denied preliminary relief after finding that the manufacturer group had not shown likely federal preemption of Vermont’s contract-pharmacy law.
“Plaintiff has not met its heavy burden of establishing that H.B. 266 is preempted through either field preemption or conflict preemption.”
Procedural preferences
In this case, she treated a dismissal motion filed after the answer as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, applying the Second Circuit rule for that procedural posture.
“The Second Circuit has made clear that even if a defendant has answered a complaint, a motion to dismiss, although styled as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, could and should be considered as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
Cautions
In one Miranda suppression ruling, Lanthier treated custody as a totality-of-circumstances question and found no arrest-like restraint where questioning occurred at home, officers repeatedly said the defendant was not under arrest or required to answer, he was not physically restrained, and he moved freely through the home.
“As a result, Mr. Quinlan was not in custody when he made the challenged statements, and the Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 30) is DENIED.”
In a ski lift injury case, the judge left summary judgment to a jury where evidence could show that a warning addressed the lift starting but not the missing guardrail involved in the injury.
“A jury could reasonably find that Defendants’ sign warned only of the danger of the lift starting, which was not the danger that caused Plaintiff’s injury.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's request for a mandatory injunction is hereby DENIED.”
“CORRECTED ORDER re 105 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. The motion is GRANTED as to Counts VII and VIII and DENIED as to Count II and Barton's request for future damages. Signed by District Judge Mary Kay Lanthier on 10/28/2025.”
“Davis's Motion to Dismiss Counts V and VI (Doc. 222) is DENIED.”
“Jarvis's Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II (Doc. 223) is GRANTED.”
“Sprague's Motion to Dismiss Counts XV and XVI (Doc. 227) is DENIED.”
“Barney's Motion to Dismiss Counts XIX and XX (Doc. 212) is DENIED.”
“Hamilton's Motion to Dismiss Counts XI and XII (Doc. 242) is DENIED.”
“Stevens's Motion to Dismiss Counts XIII and XIV (Doc. 240) is DENIED.”
“Dlubac's Motion to Dismiss Counts IX and X (Doc. 247) is DENIED.”
“The court DENIES the Motion to Amend with respect to Jarvis's claims and otherwise GRANTS the Motion to Amend.”
“the Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 30) is DENIED.”
“The court GRANTS Finn & Stone’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count I. (Doc. 139; Doc. 142). The court GRANTS Concord’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts I, III and IV; DENIES Concord’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count II; and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Concord. (Doc. 142; Doc. 143).”
“Reasonable minds can come to different conclusions on each element of Section 335 such that the court cannot grant summary judgment. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“are each GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“The court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“The Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
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 | 17 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 17 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 17 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 16 | 2 |
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 U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, not for Judge Lanthier: 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 | 1,324 | 2.5 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,000 | 2.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 315 | 4.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 6 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 3 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,324 | 2.5 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,321 | 2.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 297 | 3.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 261 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 275 | 6.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 214 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 210 | 10.8 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 Lanthier with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lanthier, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lanthier's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace