Navah C. Spero
How Judge Spero rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Spero
Navah C. Spero joined the Vermont Superior Court after Governor Phil Scott appointed her in 2023. Before taking the bench, she was a Burlington civil litigator handling commercial, trust and estate, and negligence disputes. She earned her law degree from George Washington University.
Judge Spero's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Spero's own (checked October 11, 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 11, 2026).
How Judge Spero decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Josinsky's medical-negligence suit, Spero allowed the parents' loss-of-consortium claim for injury to their child, relying on common-law reasoning and decisions from other states.
“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 Whitaker's Open Meetings Law suit against Montpelier, Spero declined to bar the city from ratifying its prior decision as interim relief.
“There is no ‘status quo’ in which the City is unable to ratify decisions otherwise in its power to make.”
Procedural preferences
In Whitaker's suit against a Vermont agency, Spero decided the dismissal motion under Rule 12(b)(6) and expressly left the subject-matter-jurisdiction question unresolved.
“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.”
In Whitaker v. City of Montpelier, Spero barred supplements to filed motions and granted the city’s motion to strike supplemental filings as part of managing the crowded docket.
“Once a motion is filed, no supplements to that motion will be permitted. The motion is complete as filed.”
Cautions
In Senesac v. Muir, Spero denied a jurisdictional motion to dismiss because the moving defendants had not supplied evidence sufficient to establish their challenge.
“the Muirs, as the moving parties, must provide evidence ‘beyond doubt’ in support of their argument, which they have not done.”
In Josinsky's suit against the medical center, Spero rejected the proposed tort theory based on federal Medicare and Medicaid rules after the plaintiffs cited no decision supporting that theory.
“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.”
Draft for Judge Spero with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Spero, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Spero's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace