Ralph Robert Erickson
How Judge Erickson rules, drawn from 53 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Erickson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
An expert's effort to eliminate alternative causes remained unreliable when it failed to address important contrary information in a supplemental report and deposition.
“When he tried to correct that mistake, Johnson still failed to address important aspects of Gaetz’s supplemental report and deposition testimony.”
At the pleading stage of a religious-accommodation case, Erickson drew reasonable inferences for the employee and declined to resolve comparator questions prematurely. A complaint can remain plausible even if one subset of differently exempted employees faced some of the same restrictions.
“we must grant all reasonable inferences in Cole’s favor and cannot assume at this early juncture that religious discrimination did not occur because one subset of potential comparators also faced disparate treatment.”
In an immigration-adoption case, Erickson required the agency to identify the facts it considered and connect them to its habitual-residence conclusion. A conclusory bottom line could not support meaningful judicial review when the record documented substantial ties on both sides of the question.
“The BIA decision fails to explain which ‘specific facts and circumstances’ it considered and how those facts negated Tim’s documented connections to the United States.”
In a school-library case, Erickson treated a curated library as school-sponsored expression and evaluated the challenged restrictions against legitimate pedagogical purposes. The record should address how the selection rule relates to curriculum, student learning, and the school's educational mission.
“Given these aspects, under Hazelwood, a school library bears the imprimatur of the school and is properly characterized as part of the school’s curriculum.”
Procedural preferences
Rule 59 could not be used after judgment to add evidence, theories, or arguments that could have been presented earlier.
“Rule 59 ‘cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.’”
A second settlement hearing was unnecessary when the record already contained the relevant exhibits and no factual dispute required live evidence.
“Schlecht has not demonstrated the existence of any factual dispute, which would require the presentation of evidence for resolution. Instead, the factual record was developed and included exhibits Schlecht submitted.”
When formation of an arbitration agreement was disputed, the arbitrability question had to be resolved before merits discovery proceeded.
“In this case, the Arbitration Act dictates that discovery on the underlying merits should not occur until after the proper venue, i.e. arbitration or federal court, is determined.”
Erickson applied claim preclusion by comparing the factual transactions underlying parallel insurance actions rather than the labels or elements of the pleaded theories. A party seeking separate declaratory relief should obtain express authorization to split claims arising from the same policy dispute.
“Even if a claim being pursued is a different cause of action with different elements, for the purposes of claim preclusion, courts are directed to look at the factual bases for the claims, not the legal theories.”
In a renewed pre-enforcement challenge, Erickson enforced the earlier appellate ruling when the challengers offered no materially different evidence of a threat to enforce the statute. A later-stage challenge must identify changed evidence or another recognized basis for departing from the law of the case.
“Because this Court previously resolved the legal question of Ex parte Young’s applicability and the parties have not presented evidence materially different from what was introduced during the preliminary injunction proceedings, the law of the case doctrine governs.”
In dissent, he emphasized that naming a federal statute does not itself create federal-question jurisdiction; the pleaded facts must plausibly establish a substantive federal claim.
“subject matter jurisdiction is not established merely because a plaintiff can point to a federal statute.”
Cautions
Loss of electronic evidence did not warrant sanctions where the missing material could not prejudice the qualified-immunity analysis.
“Unable to show prejudice, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Thompson’s motion for sanctions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We granted the Defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) petition for interlocutory appeal of the grant of class certification, and now affirm.”
“We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and we affirm.”
“plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action seeking to allocate defense costs among insured and uninsured parties, appeal the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. ... We affirm.”
“Edmonds appeals, arguing the district court erred when it departed and varied upward from the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines range. We affirm.”
“The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss, asserting the doctrine of res judicata barred Scott's claims. The district court granted the defendants' motion. Scott appeals, and we affirm.”
“Sandknop now appeals with the assistance of pro bono counsel. We affirm.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”
“We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 and affirm.”
“Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, we affirm.”
“We affirm the grant of summary judgment, but vacate the part of the order related to the NFEPA claim, with directions that the NFEPA claim be remanded to the state court in its entirety.”
“We conclude that 18 U.S.C. Section 3599 does not permit the district court to compel state officials to act in furtherance of state clemency proceedings.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Circuit judges do not carry a current trial caseload. Erickson's pre-2017 D.N.D. district docket is a separate historical chapter and is not included here.
Draft for Judge Erickson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Erickson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Erickson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace