Donald R. Cassling

How Judge Cassling rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Retired 2026
Served
2012–2026
Appointed by
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Commissioned
2012-01-18
Education
Duke University, A.B.; University of Chicago Law School, J.D., Law Review editorial board
Signed orders read
19

How Judge Cassling decides

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

What persuades

A request to displace Chapter 11 management required clear and convincing evidence of cause or a concrete benefit to the estate's constituencies.

“the Court finds, based on the totality of the evidence, that Wells Fargo has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a Chapter 11 trustee should be appointed under § 1104(a)(1) or (a)(2).”

Procedural preferences

Requests to extend a small-business confirmation deadline required notice to every creditor directly affected by the proposed plan.

“The creditors that Debtor failed to provide notice to are indeed ‘parties in interest’ and are directly affected by the terms of Debtor's proposed plan.”

Cautions

A secured creditor that wants assured distributions under a Chapter 13 plan should file a timely proof of claim rather than rely on lien enforcement outside bankruptcy.

“Therefore, if a secured creditor wants to ensure participation in a debtor’s plan rather than rely on enforcement of its lien outside of bankruptcy, it must file a proof of claim in a timely manner.”

Signed rulings

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

In re Wheelchair Sales & Services, Inc.
· 2018-11-20
Objection to extension of confirmation deadline (the United States Trustee) Granted

“For the reasons previously stated, the Court sustains the objection of the UST and denies Debtor's Motion.”

Motion to extend plan confirmation deadline (the debtor) Denied
In re Hrubec
· 2016-01-27
Motion to dismiss chapter 13 case (the standing Chapter 13 trustee) Denied

“Therefore, the Trustee’s motion to dismiss is denied.”

In re McQuaid
· 2013-05-16
Objection to exemption (the Chapter 7 trustee) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, the Court sustains the Trustee’s objection to the Debtors’ claim of exemption in the Trust.”

In re Avila
· 2017-03-21
Motion for declaration of no stay violation (the City of Chicago) Granted

“the Court finds that the City has not violated the automatic stay because its post-petition retention of the Vehicle was an act to maintain perfection of its possessory statutory lien within the meaning of § 362(b)(3).”

In re Evon
· 2013-03-21
Motion to declare plan complete (the debtors) Granted

“For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the Debtors’ motion and finds that the Debtors have completed their plan.”

In re Tires N Tracks, Inc.
· 2013-08-27
Objection to claim (Laser Construction, Inc.) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains Laser’s objection and finds that Vermeer’s Claim No. 3 is unsecured.”

Cyrnek v. Oliva (In re Oliva)
· 2018-10-23
Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (the defendant) Denied

“For these reasons, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss.”

In re Pajian
· 2014-04-15
Objection to claim (the debtor) Granted in part

“the Court overrules the Debtor’s objection to the secured portion of the Claim. The Court deems allowed the secured portion of that Claim in the amount of $233,229.68. Further, the Coiírt finds that the Bank’s response to the Debtor’s motion to extend the automatic stay does not constitute an informal proof of claim. Therefore, the Court sustains the Debtor’s objection to the Claim with respect to the unsecured portion of the Claim”

In re Sori
· 2014-07-29
Motion for sanctions for automatic stay violation (the debtor) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the Debtor’s motion for sanctions against IDES and Ms. Kolinski under § 362(k)(l).”

In re Arnold
· 2012-11-28
Objection to claim (the debtors) Granted

“the Court sustains the Debtors’ objection to the Bank’s secured claim and finds that the Bank has an allowed unsecured claim in the amount of $200,318.65.”

Brandt v. FDIC (In re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc.)
· 2016-11-21
Summary judgment (the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment on all counts of the second amended complaint.”

Grochocinski v. Campbell (In re Campbell)
· 2012-07-02
Motion to dismiss adversary complaint (the debtors) Granted in part

“Portions of Count I, all of Count II, portions of Count III, and all of Count V are dismissed without prejudice and the Motion to Dismiss is otherwise denied.”

A historical record

Judge Cassling 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.