Charles Ronald Norgle Sr.
How Judge Norgle rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Norgle no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Norgle
Charles R. Norgle Sr. served as a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois after receiving his commission in October 1984. He assumed inactive senior status in October 2022. Before his federal appointment, he served as a DuPage County circuit judge.
How Judge Norgle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, prolonged untreated dental pain is an objectively serious medical need, and a provider's choice of the 'easier and less efficacious treatment' (temporary fixes, pain meds, refusing to refer to a dentist absent an 'emergency') can itself be deliberate indifference, so an 'it was never an emergency' defense does not win summary judgment.
“the law is clear that ‘such emergencies are certainly not the only serious dental conditions that demand reasonably prompt professional attention.’ ... Thus, this ‘emergency’ argument is no cure-all for Medical Defendants.”
Under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, common-law claims (unjust enrichment, conversion, trespass to chattels, civil conspiracy) that are predicated solely on the defendant's possession or use of the plaintiff's confidential information are preempted and dismissed: even where the information may ultimately not qualify as a trade secret. Plead an independent factual basis or lose the duplicative counts.
“Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is dependent on trade secrets and is preempted. ... Accordingly Count IX is dismissed without prejudice.”
Procedural preferences
In Thurman v. Stavaru Academy, Norgle applied Local Rule 56.1 to the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, identifying the properly supported facts after finding many of their factual assertions contested or unsupported.
“Litigants must strictly comply with LR 56.1, and district courts do not abuse their discretion when they disregard facts presented in a noncompliant manner. ... ‘The court is not required to scour the record for evidence that supports a party's case if the party fails to point it out; that is the counsel's job.’”
On cross-motions for summary judgment he evaluates each motion independently and on its own record; denying one side's motion does not mean the other side wins. Brief each motion as a standalone, not as a referendum on the opponent's.
“Each motion is to be evaluated independently, and denial of one does not necessitate the grant of the other.”
Cautions
In Brooks v. City of Elmhurst, Norgle granted the officers summary judgment on a false arrest suit. He found that video contradicted the plaintiff’s account and that the remaining evidence established probable cause for the arrest.
“The video evidence contradicts Plaintiff's account; therefore, the Court will not accept his version of what transpired for purposes of summary judgment.”
In Simpkins’s worker-classification suit, Norgle held that the DuPage Housing Authority was a political subdivision exempt from the Illinois Employee Classification Act and that its wholly controlled subsidiary shared the exemption. He separately denied the defendants’ motion on the Prevailing Wage Act claim.
“the Court holds as a matter of law that the DuPage Housing Authority is a ‘political subdivision’ of the State of Illinois for purposes of the IECA and that as such it is exempt from liability under the IECA”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment [38] is granted. Civil case terminated. ... For the reasons stated, judgment is entered in Defendants' favor on all claims.”
“Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment [98] is granted in part and denied in part. ... Defendant DHA's motion for summary judgment as to the IECA claim, Count 3, is granted. ... Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the IPWA claim is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [86] is denied. ... because the Court has held that Defendants are political subdivisions exempt from liability under the IECA, Plaintiff's motion thus is denied.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA and IMWL is denied. ... For the foregoing reasons, ... Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“In short, due to substantial disputes on issues of material fact at every turn, each motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Finally, with respect to Defendants' motion to strike, Defendants have submitted an undeveloped argument ... As such, that motion is likewise denied. United States v. Dunkel ... (‘Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.’)”
“For the aforementioned reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and III is denied. ... Finally, the Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts V, VII, VIII, IX, X. ... to the extent any claim was dismissed, it dismissed without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1847 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 153 days (N = 2).
- Senior (inactive) since October 2022, so he no longer takes new cases.
- His litigated civil docket (the cases sampled here) spans employment and wage matters (Simpkins, Thurman), Section 1983 civil rights (Brooks false-arrest, Brady jail deliberate-indifference), and trade-secret and commercial disputes (Inmar/Ahalogy).
- His final pre-senior assignments in mid-2022 were heavily Schedule-A intellectual-property suits and quickly terminated removals and preliminary-injunction matters.
- Nature of suit is only partially reported in the case-level docket metadata.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Norgle was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2023.
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 30 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 31 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 31 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 30 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 26 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Norgle no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.