Franklin Ulyses Valderrama
How Judge Valderrama rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Valderrama
Franklin Ulyses Valderrama is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Valderrama received a commission on September 23, 2020.
Judge Valderrama's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Valderrama, 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.
- Case Procedures ↗
- Standing Order Governing Settlement Conferences ↗
- Joint Initial Status Report Under Rule 26(f) ↗
Key rules
Motions
In bankruptcy appeals, file opening briefs 30 days after the record is docketed, responses 30 days later, and replies within 14 days; briefs are limited to 15 pages.
“Notice of Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court Bankruptcy must be filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment by the Bankruptcy Court. Any motions to extend time must be filed within the 14-day period. Appellant's Opening Brief is due 30 days after docketing of the record, responses are due 30 days thereafter and replies are due within 14 days of the response. Briefs are limited to 15 pages each.”
Conferences
Send the final plea agreement or declaration to the courtroom deputy at least two full business days before a change-of-plea hearing.
“Counsel must send a copy of the final version of the plea agreement or plea declaration to the courtroom deputy at [email protected] at least two full business days ahead of the change of plea hearing. By the same deadline, only where applicable, the parties are directed to file a status report setting forth the parties’ positions as to whether Defendant should be detained or released under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3143(a), 3145.”
Trial
In civil cases, tell clients about consent to magistrate jurisdiction and discuss it with opposing counsel.
“Every case has an assigned Magistrate Judge. In civil cases, the parties may consent to have the assigned Magistrate Judge try the case. In many cases, consent to refer the entire case to the Magistrate Judge may offer significant efficiencies and greater certainty in scheduling the trial. All counsel in civil cases should inform their clients of this option and discuss it with opposing counsel.”
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 Valderrama decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bayer v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Valderrama granted the employer summary judgment on the age-discrimination claim. The alleged age-related remark came from someone other than the decisionmaker, was remote from the firing, and did not refer to it.
“the comment was not made by the decisionmaker, was not made around the time of the termination decision, and did not in any way reference Bayer’s termination. ... there is no evidence in the record that Warnecke was aware of the comment or complaint”
In Jackson v. Holmes, Valderrama dismissed without prejudice the excessive-force theory that conflicted with Jackson’s conviction, while allowing claims about force allegedly used after he was subdued to proceed. He also found that the defendants had not established the elements of collateral estoppel on the motion-to-dismiss record.
“Heck . . . do[es] not affect litigation about what happens after the crime is completed. ... the proper response is not to toss the entire complaint. Instead, the judge must carve off any Heck-barred contentions and proceed with what remains.”
Procedural preferences
In Blazek's employment case, he accepted supported facts in the defendant's Local Rule 56.1 statement that Blazek had not rebutted with admissible evidence, and excluded denials that contradicted Blazek's deposition testimony.
“where Blazek did not respond to certain purported facts of ADT’s by offering admissible evidence of his own, the Court accepts as true the facts set forth in ADT’s Local Rule 56.1 statement, ... The Court also will not consider Blazek’s denials wherein Blazek seeks to defeat summary judgment by contradicting his own deposition testimony.”
Cautions
In Amicorp Management v. Insight Securities, Valderrama denied leave to amend the defendants’ negligence counterclaim because the proposed pleading alleged no cognizable duty under Illinois law. With the other counterclaims withdrawn, he declined further amendment and terminated the case.
“Having already denied the Insight Parties’ motion for leave to amend based on futility, the Court, in its discretion, does not permit further amendment. ... With no remaining claims and further amendment not permitted, this civil case is terminated.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons given above, Defendant’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment [61] is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the Insight Parties’ motion for leave to amend [77]. ... Having already denied the Insight Parties’ motion for leave to amend based on futility, the Court, in its discretion, does not permit further amendment. ... With no remaining claims and further amendment not permitted, this civil case is terminated.”
“With Counterclaim Counts I and II withdrawn, the Court strikes the Amicorp Parties’ Motion to Dismiss [55] as moot.”
“For the foregoing reasons, ADT’s motion for summary judgment [51] is granted. The Court enters summary judgment in favor of ADT and against Blazek. Civil case terminated.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [31] is granted. Civil case terminated.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [80] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Defendants Hain and Kane County's motion to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV [39] is granted.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [30] is denied.”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' class allegations is denied.”
“Jeffreys and Gomez's motion to dismiss [64] is granted with prejudice. The Cook County Defendants' motion to dismiss [66] is granted with respect to Dart with prejudice, and denied as to all remaining Cook County Defendants. The Wexford Defendants' motions to dismiss [93][102] are denied.”
“Experian's motion for summary judgment [103] is granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment is granted as to count II and statutory damages under U.S.C. 1681n(a) but is denied as to count III.”
“Tudryn's motion for summary judgment [87] is granted and the Advocate Defendants' motion for summary judgment [84] is denied.”
“the Advocate Defendants' motion for summary judgment [84] is denied”
“Northwestern's Motion to Dismiss Counts II, III, and IV of Jackson's Second Amended Complaint is granted.”
“Northwestern's Motion to Strike certain allegations is granted in part and denied as moot in part.”
“the Court denies ICS' Motion to Compel Arbitration [10].”
“the Court denies in part and grants in part Gilbert's Motion to Strike [17]. The Court strikes the Hansen Declaration but does not strike any other portions of ICS' Reply.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 776 days (N = 12).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 565 days (N = 5).
- Sampled from his earliest terminated civil dockets (filed 2013-2019, terminated 2020-2021: inherited from Castillo).
- Mix is employment / civil rights (Morrow-Estrada v. Home Depot, Hall v. Collins, Wright v. Cook County), prisoner civil rights (Cates, Lumpkins, McFadden), FMLA (Guttke), FLSA (Lee v. Xilin), product liability (Rinehart v. Synthes), and commercial contract (Jacobson Warehouse, Gravelle, Amicorp).
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 | 29 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 38 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 29 | 38 |
| Sep 2025 | 56 | 52 |
| Mar 2025 | 77 | 48 |
| Sep 2024 | 62 | 76 |
| Mar 2024 | 63 | 70 |
| Sep 2023 | 59 | 79 |
| Mar 2023 | 65 | 71 |
| Sep 2022 | 63 | 71 |
| Mar 2022 | 39 | 54 |
| Sep 2021 | 31 | 58 |
| Mar 2021 | 17 | 41 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 25 |
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 Valderrama: 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 Valderrama with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Valderrama, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Valderrama's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace