John Aaron Gorman

United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois magistrate Retired 2024 · served 2000–2024 5 signed orders read

Judge Gorman no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Gorman decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Procedural preferences

On summary judgment he holds the non-moving party to the rules: a scintilla of evidence or 'metaphysical doubt' is not enough, and a party opposing the motion must identify specific probative evidence in the record under the court's local rule rather than rest on the allegations of the complaint.

“A scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position is not sufficient to oppose successfully a summary judgment motion ... the parties must identify the evidence that will facilitate the court's assessment.”

He values efficiency in case management over technical pleading defaults: where a brief's record citations fall short of the rule but the court already knows the case, he will overlook the deficiency rather than require a wasteful re-filing.

“The particular deficiencies in the Response pointed out by Defendant were also considered ... The Court's familiarity with the case enabled it to overlook these deficiencies. In the interests of efficiency, the motion to strike is DENIED.”

In employment cases he reads the governing statutes broadly in the plaintiff's favor at the threshold -- treating reproductive impairment as a recognized major life activity under the ADA and ERISA fiduciary status under its 'liberal standard' -- so defendants cannot win such issues on a thin record.

“The term 'fiduciary' under ERISA has consistently been given a broad meaning.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Giwa v. City of Peoria
1:09-cv-01306 / 917 F. Supp. 2d 850 · 2013-01-08
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Now before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 43). ... As explained herein, the motion is granted.”

EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc.
631 F. Supp. 2d 1076 · 2009-06-29
Motion in limine (defendant) Granted in part

“there is no opposition to the following motions, and they are therefore granted: Motions # 1 ... and # 14 ... This Order resolves the remaining motions. ... The motion in limine is denied.”

Central Illinois Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. S & S Fashion Floors, Inc.
516 F. Supp. 2d 931 · 2007-10-18
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Now before the Court is Defendant Helen M. Struben's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II[# 53]. ... As explained herein, the motion is denied.”

Nunez v. BNSF Railway Co.
936 F. Supp. 2d 969 · 2012-08-09
Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“In the interests of efficiency, the motion to strike is DENIED.”

Scott v. City of Peoria
· 2011-10-25
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted

“Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (#57). The motion is fully briefed, and I have carefully considered all of the submissions of the parties. For the following reasons, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Illustrative texture only; not weighted counts. No authoritative caseload baseline loaded.

A historical record

Judge Gorman no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.