James Edward Shadid
How Judge Shadid decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Grants defense summary judgment on a plaintiff's own deposition admissions establishing statute-of-limitations accrual under Illinois' objective discovery rule.
“at a minimum, Ms. Cochran knew that her injury was caused by the acts of another by the time of her revision surgery on November 18, 2010; a fact she confirmed in her deposition.”
Procedural preferences
Demands Rule 9(b) particularity in FCA qui tam: a relator must allege an actual submitted false claim ('the who, what, when, where, and how'); a billing-removed insider who only describes a scheme is insufficient, and repeated amendment opportunities exhaust leave.
“Having had three opportunities to provide sufficient detail of his claims, the Court is now of the opinion that Gravett will never be able to do so, and the Motions to Dismiss are granted.”
Enforces Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)'s separated undisputed/disputed fact statements on summary judgment, but will exercise discretion to overlook a non-compliant response where the undisputed facts decide the motion.
“because the undisputed facts provide a sufficient basis to conclude that Plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of her claim, the Court overlooks the defects in Plaintiff's response.”
Cautions
A Sec.1983 occupational-liberty claim fails without a tangible loss of employment: re-employment in a comparable job (here within ~a year) defeats 'blacklisting,' and available CBA grievance procedures satisfy due process even post-termination.
“Wood's year-long hiatus from teaching did not amount to a tangible loss of employment sufficient to support her liberty interest claim. She was not 'blacklisted' from the profession”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 4 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 3 |
Granted: 3 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Motion to Dismiss [14] is GRANTED and the alternative request for summary judgment is MOOT. This matter is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.”
“The City's Motion for Summary Judgment [77] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Titus [78] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“The City's Motion for Summary Judgment [77] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Titus [78] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Methodist's Motion to Dismiss [100] is GRANTED, and CES's Motion to Dismiss [98] is GRANTED.”
“Methodist's Motion to Dismiss [100] is GRANTED, and CES's Motion to Dismiss [98] is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion is Granted.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant's [17] Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. This matter is now terminated.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 276.0 days (N = 20).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 140 days (N = 1).
Caseload mix is descriptive from search_dockets nature_of_suit fields across the enumerated 2020 + 2024-25 cohorts; not an exhaustive census.