Gary Scott Feinerman
How Judge Feinerman rules, drawn from 6 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Feinerman no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Feinerman
Gary Feinerman was a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Feinerman received a commission on June 29, 2010. Judge Feinerman resigned on December 31, 2022.
How Judge Feinerman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a product liability case involving a third-party sale on Amazon, he held that Amazon was not a seller under Illinois Section 402A because it never possessed the product and Illinois courts had not extended that liability to comparable circumstances.
“This court therefore cannot predict that the Supreme Court of Illinois would hold on the present facts that Amazon is a § 402A ‘seller’ of a third-party seller's product.”
In Figueroa v. Kronos, Feinerman held that BIPA § 15(b) covered a third-party timekeeping vendor that obtained biometric data, not only the employer that collected it. He denied an early request to strike the proposed class.
“Section 15(b) governs not only entities that ‘collect’ biometric data, but also those that ‘capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain’ such data.”
Procedural preferences
In Eberhardt v. Village of Tinley Park, Feinerman dismissed a lengthy, repetitive complaint without prejudice because it did not give fair notice of what each defendant allegedly did. He allowed one chance to replead.
“Here, the complaint's length, repetitiveness, and excessive incorporation of large swaths of factual allegations in each count make it impossible to evaluate what each defendant is alleged to have done what and how that defendant may have violated Eberhardt's rights.”
In Mace v. Berje, Feinerman treated the plaintiff’s failure to respond to a venue motion as forfeiting opposition. He also considered the merits and transferred the case to South Carolina.
“Mace did not respond and did not seek an extension. Accordingly, Mace has forfeited any argument she might have presented in opposition to Kerry's motion to dismiss.”
Cautions
In Figueroa v. Kronos, Feinerman denied a motion to strike class allegations from a biometric privacy suit. He found that the defendant’s objections raised fact intensive questions unsuited to resolution before discovery and did not show that the proposed class was facially deficient.
“Only if the class allegations are ‘facially and inherently deficient’ should a motion to strike be granted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, Midland's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for judgment on the pleadings is denied.”
“Kronos's motion to dismiss and the motion to strike class allegations are denied.”
“Because the complaint violates Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b), it is dismissed under Rule 41(b). ... The dismissal is without prejudice, and Eberhardt is given until November 4, 2020, to file an amended complaint.”
“Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion is granted. The court enters a Rule 54(b) judgment vacating the Final Rule, to take effect immediately. Litigation may proceed in this court on ICIRR's equal protection claim.”
“Amazon's summary judgment motion is granted. This case may proceed, if at all, against Paradise and Shenzhen only.”
“Defendant Kerry, Inc.'s motion to dismiss [49] is granted. This case is transferred to the District of South Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).”
“Defendant Elan Chemical's motion to dismiss [59] is denied without prejudice to renewal in the District of South Carolina.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 157.5 days (N = 20).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 119 days (N = 5).
Descriptive from the case-level nature-of-suit and cause fields across the Jan-2018 cohort; not an authoritative baseline (no case-disposition analysis was run). Treat as a slice, not the judge's full caseload mix.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Feinerman was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of March 31, 2023.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 22 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 18 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 25 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 44 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 40 |
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 Feinerman 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.