Elaine Patricia Bucklo
How Judge Bucklo rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bucklo
Elaine E. Bucklo is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Bucklo received a commission on October 11, 1994. Judge Bucklo assumed senior status on October 31, 2009.
Judge Bucklo's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bucklo, 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 objections to a proposed order at least two days before motion presentment.
“Any objection to the order must be filed at least two days prior to the presentment of the motion.”
Motions
Notice motion presentment at least three business days after filing.
“The presentment date shall be no fewer than 3 business days after the motion is filed.”
Motions
Notify Judge Bucklo’s courtroom deputy before filing an emergency motion.
“BEFORE ANY EMERGENCY MOTION IS FILED, COUNSEL SHALL NOTIFY JUDGE BUCKLO'S COURTROOM DEPUTY AT [email protected] OR 312-435-7611.”
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 Bucklo decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Mocek v. Allsaints USA, Bucklo remanded a removed consumer protection suit after the defendant disavowed federal jurisdiction. She declined to decide a disputed standing issue solely to give the defendant an advisory argument for state court.
“with no party willing to overcome the presumption against federal jurisdiction, remand is appropriate on any analysis.”
In Pamplin v. Illinois Department of Human Services, Bucklo rejected a pleading stage limitations defense because the complaint alleged a termination within the filing period. She also declined to dismiss isolated legal theories from otherwise plausible claims; the motion succeeded only as to one defendant.
“a court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim but may not strike individual legal theories from the complaint”
In a prison-conditions case, she denied summary judgment where the plaintiff's deposition testimony directly contradicted the officer's account of whether he had been told about broken windows and a nonfunctioning toilet.
“Defendant Malkowski’s argument ignores Plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he informed Malkowski of the broken windows in both cells and that he informed Malkowski about the non-functioning toilet and that Malkowski failed to have the situation corrected.”
Procedural preferences
In Mocek v. Allsaints USA, Bucklo remanded the action and awarded the plaintiff removal-related attorney fees under § 1447(c). The defendant had asserted federal jurisdiction on removal but then disavowed it while seeking dismissal with prejudice, leaving no objectively reasonable basis for removal.
“plaintiff is entitled to recover her attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of removal.”
Cautions
In Garagher v. Marzullo, Bucklo deemed the defendants’ supported Local Rule 56.1 facts admitted after the represented plaintiff failed to cite the record in opposing summary judgment. Incorporating arguments from a companion case did not supply the missing citations for this plaintiff.
“It is not the duty of the court to scour the record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment; rather, the nonmoving party bears the responsibility of identifying the evidence upon which he relies.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, I grant plaintiff’s motion for remand and attorneys’ fees and deny as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
“deny as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss”
“defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted only as to defendant IDCMS and is otherwise denied.”
“I grant (1) the individual defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and (2) the City’s motion to dismiss.”
“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to the breach of contract claim, and denied as to the remaining claims for fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, each of defendant’s pending motions is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the opinions of defendant’s expert is denied as moot.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the opinions of defendant’s expert is denied as moot.”
“For the foregoing reasons, CCM’s and BNSF’s motions for judgment on the pleadings are granted. Twin City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.”
“Twin City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. The amended complaint is dismissed in its entirety.”
“As to Counts IV and VI, I grant the pending motions for summary judgment. As to the remainder, I deny them.”
“I grant that motion in part and deny it in parts.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [80] is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 109.0 days (N = 18).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 85.5 days (N = 6).
The reviewed 2021 and 2022 filing cohorts show a broad civil docket, including intellectual-property and counterfeiting cases, pension-fund collection actions, consumer-credit disputes, civil-rights and employment cases, Social Security appeals, and personal-injury matters. Criminal cases were not included in the civil-duration sample.
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 Bucklo: 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 Bucklo with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bucklo, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bucklo's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace