Navah C. Spero
How Judge Spero decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On unsettled Vermont questions she looks to the common-law trend and out-of-state authority: she allowed a novel parental loss-of-consortium claim for a negligently injured child to proceed.
“the logic of a common law consortium claim and the general trend are in favor of allowing parents to recover for loss of consortium due to negligence directed towards their children.”
She adopted the out-of-state rule permitting a former homeowner to assign a defective-construction contract claim after selling the home, over the contrary view.
“a former homeowner may validly assign a contractual claim related to defective construction even after having sold the home subject of the original construction contract.”
In municipal Open Meetings Law litigation she holds that a court cannot enjoin a municipality from ratifying its own decision; the remedy for an OML violation is ratification, not voiding the action.
“There is no “status quo” in which the City is unable to ratify decisions otherwise in its power to make.”
Procedural preferences
She resolves a case on the ground the parties actually briefed and expressly declines to reach an unraised jurisdictional question when it is unnecessary.
“the court decides the motion on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds for the sake of expedience, and takes no position in this decision on the subject matter jurisdiction issue.”
She treats early-stage amendment liberally, denying leave only for futility.
“a motion to amend the complaint at this phase is almost always granted. The only exception is when a motion to amend would be futile.”
She will impose structured filing restrictions to control an over-filed docket, treating a motion as complete when filed.
“Once a motion is filed, no supplements to that motion will be permitted. The motion is complete as filed.”
Cautions
On a Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional dismissal she places the evidentiary burden on the moving party and will not require the plaintiff to prove its interest at the pleading stage.
“the Muirs, as the moving parties, must provide evidence “beyond doubt” in support of their argument, which they have not done.”
She rejects novel liability theories that lack supporting authority, such as the argument that federal Medicare/Medicaid regulations create hospital tort liability.
“The Court has not found any decisions, however, and the Josinskys were unable to cite any when asked during oral argument, that agreed with their position that the federal Medicare/Medicaid regulations impose tort liability.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted.”
“Mr. Whitaker’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.”
“the Court GRANTS the motion for partial summary judgment as to Counts 1 and 2 to the extent they are based on Dr. Gallagher’s and/or Dr. Petersen’s alleged negligence and DENIES the motion as to Count 3.”
“Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.”
“Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s amended complaint would also survive a motion to dismiss and is therefore not futile, the motion to amend is granted.”
“The Court denies Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted to the following effect:”
“the Court denies Summary Judgment for both parties regarding claims of an express easement and grants Summary Judgment for Defendant on the claims of a prescriptive easement and implied easement by grant.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Muirs’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.”
“The motion to reconsider is granted in part and denied it in part.”
“The motion to amend is granted in part as noted above.”
“Mr. Whitaker’s request for a preliminary injunction is denied.”
“Mr. Whitaker’s motion to amend is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:”
“Mr. Whitaker’s motion to file a response to the City’s memorandum regarding appropriate the remedy is denied.”
“The City’s motion to strike supplemental filings is granted.”
Put Judge Spero's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Spero actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Spero's own signed orders and cites them.