Charles Petros Kocoras
How Judge Kocoras rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kocoras
Charles Petros Kocoras is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter, Judge Kocoras received a commission on September 30, 1980. Judge Kocoras assumed senior status on June 30, 2006.
Judge Kocoras's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kocoras, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
File bankruptcy appeal briefs within 15 days after judgment.
“Briefs on appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court must be filed within 15 days of the entry of judgment by the Bankruptcy Court.”
Motions
File motions at least three working days before the hearing.
“All motions must be filed at least three working days prior to the date of the hearing of the motion pursuant to Local Rule 78.1 .”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Kocoras decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a suit over overseas online sellers, the plaintiff’s investigatory purchase shipped to Illinois did not establish personal jurisdiction over the appearing defendants. The court required evidence of Illinois transactions beyond the plaintiff’s own test purchases.
“Such sales on their own are insufficient for the purposes of personal jurisdiction, for Plaintiff has not identified evidence of any transactions involving an allegedly counterfeit product between the Moving Defendants and Illinois customers, other than the ‘test buys.’”
In a labor-arbitration dispute, the court applied the presumption of arbitrability to a last-chance agreement. Its waiver of arbitration over a termination did not expressly exclude a dispute over whether the underlying violation occurred.
“expressly exclude a dispute over that determination from arbitration.”
Procedural preferences
In Brown v. Primerica Life Insurance Co., Kocoras assessed the parties’ cross-motions independently, then granted Primerica summary judgment and denied Brown’s motion after finding no admissible evidence rebutting the change-of-beneficiary form.
“When parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, each motion must be assessed independently, and denial of one does not necessitate the grant of the other.”
In Brown v. Primerica Life Insurance, Kocoras granted the insurer summary judgment in a beneficiary dispute after finding that the plaintiff offered no evidence on which a reasonable juror could reject the insurer’s account of the disputed form’s execution.
“summary judgment is appropriate where the movant has carried its initial burden and the nonmovant has presented no evidence upon which a reasonable juror could rely in returning a verdict for the nonmovant.”
Cautions
A state-law civil-conspiracy claim must rest on an independent unlawful act and a real injury; alleged concealment of a tortfeasor's identity that merely delays (but does not foreclose) the plaintiff's access to the courts is not actionable, because the plaintiff could have sued and obtained the identity in discovery.
“because Chico's conspiracy claim is not grounded in an unlawful act, he has failed to state a civil conspiracy under Illinois law, and accordingly, Count III must be dismissed.”
In ExpeditEE v. The Entities Listed on Exhibit 1, Kocoras denied the appearing defendants’ request for sanctions under § 1927 because counsel’s missteps amounted to negligence rather than vexatious bad faith.
“these missteps amount to mere negligence rather than vexatious conduct in bad faith. The Moving Defendants’ motion for sanctions is denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing analysis, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice.”
“Based on the foregoing analysis, the motion to dismiss of Defendants Survillas and Woods is denied.”
“Based on the foregoing analysis, Primerica's motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Carolyn Brown's motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Local 73's motion for summary judgment is granted. Argonne's motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Argonne's motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“The Moving Defendants' Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's FAC is dismissed as to the Moving Defendants ... for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“these missteps amount to mere negligence rather than vexatious conduct in bad faith. The Moving Defendants' motion for sanctions is denied.”
“Pittsfield’s motion for summary judgment [170] is granted-in-part and denied-in-part”
“the City’s motion for summary judgment [177] is granted-in-part and denied-in-part.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [50] is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [36] is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Envoy’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer [6] in part. The Clerk is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, the Court grants MB Financial’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint of Defendants Holy Family Parish and The Archdiocese of Chicago [10] is denied;”
“For the aforementioned reasons, the motion for summary judgment is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 314 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 67 days (N = 1).
- On senior status since 2006 but long active; the cases sampled span civil-rights and municipal matters (Chico), Lanham Act and intellectual property including the modern Schedule-A overseas-counterfeiter wave (Full House, Expeditee/Xped), insurance breach-of-contract (Brown v. Primerica), and labor and arbitration (Local 73 v. Argonne, one of several SEIU-versus-Argonne matters he handled).
- Notable career cases include the e360 Insight v. Spamhaus default judgment and the United States v. Ty Warner tax sentencing.
- Nature of suit is only partially reported in the case-level docket metadata.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 11 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 18 |
| Mar 2024 | 6 | 22 |
| Sep 2023 | 10 | 21 |
| Mar 2023 | 18 | 31 |
| Sep 2022 | 15 | 26 |
| Mar 2022 | 12 | 24 |
| Sep 2021 | 11 | 19 |
| Mar 2021 | 8 | 16 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 13 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, not for Judge Kocoras: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 4,300 | 7 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,558 | 5.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 305 | 12.6 months |
| Closed during trial | 42 | 49.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 12,205 | 5.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,700 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 7,093 | 6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 6,841 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 9,703 | 15.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,046 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,134 | 7.4 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Kocoras with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kocoras, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kocoras's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace