Gary Scott Feinerman
How Judge Feinerman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Erie restraint -- in diversity/state-law claims he declines to expand state tort liability into novel territory absent guidance from the state's highest court, choosing the narrower reading that restricts liability. Held Amazon is not a §402A 'seller' because it never took possession/control of the third-party-sold product.
“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.”
Reads remedial statutes by their text and structure even where a defendant urges a narrowing gloss -- held a third-party biometric-timekeeping vendor that 'obtains' data is covered by BIPA §15(b), not just the employer.
“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
Strong intolerance for shotgun/'kitchen sink' pleading -- a complaint so long, repetitive, and jumbled that it cannot give fair notice is dismissed under Rules 8(a)(2)/10(b) (Rule 41(b)), without prejudice and with 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.”
Aggressively enforces forfeiture/waiver -- failing to respond to a motion, or raising a perfunctory or undeveloped argument, forfeits it.
“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
Will not strike class allegations at the pleading stage on fact-intensive superiority/predominance/adequacy grounds -- those wait for the certification stage after discovery; striking requires the allegations be 'facially and inherently deficient.'
“Only if the class allegations are “facially and inherently deficient” should a motion to strike be granted.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 5 |
Granted: 2Denied: 2Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to strike N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”
“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 search_dockets nature_of_suit/cause fields across the Jan-2018 cohort; NOT an FJC IDB baseline (no idb_data pass run this build). Treat as a slice, not the judge's full caseload mix.