Georgia N. Alexakis
How Judge Alexakis rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Alexakis
Georgia Nick Alexakis is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Alexakis received a commission on August 2, 2024.
Judge Alexakis's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Alexakis, 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 ↗
- alexakis - initial status report for newly assigned case (4-28-25) ↗
- alexakis - initial status report for reassigned case (4) ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Put substantive case communications on the record; send procedural questions to the courtroom deputy.
“All substantive case-related communication with Judge Alexakis must be on the record. All other communications (e.g., procedural or logistical questions) should be directed to the Courtroom Deputy. The Courtroom Deputy prefers receiving emails rather than phone calls.”
Motions
When counsel files an amended complaint, attach a redline showing changes from the previous complaint.
“When filing an amended complaint, a plaintiff must file a redline as an attachment, so that all changes from the previous version of the complaint are readily apparent to the parties and Judge Alexakis.”
Other
Self-represented litigants are exempt from the redline requirement for amended complaints.
“This rule does not apply to litigants who are representing themselves (i.e., without the assistance of a lawyer).”
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 Alexakis decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Extended Stay Hotel antitrust litigation, Alexakis transferred the class action to the Northern District of California under § 1404(a), giving substantial weight to a similar, earlier-filed case already proceeding there.
“There is an overwhelming factor that suggests transfer is warranted for the convenience of both parties: the ongoing California action.”
In the Extended Stay Hotel antitrust litigation, Alexakis gave the plaintiffs’ choice of forum little weight on transfer because the proposed class was nationwide and only one of 18 named plaintiffs lived in Illinois.
“Because this is a nationwide class action, and because only one of the 18 named Plaintiffs resides in Illinois, the Court gives Plaintiffs' choice of forum little weight.”
Procedural preferences
In Dimon v. City of Waukegan, Alexakis held that filing a fee and civil cover sheet did not commence the action under Rule 3; the complaint itself had to be filed within the right-to-sue period.
“Rule 3 specifies that the filing of the complaint commences an action, not the payment of the filing fee or the filing of a different paper like the civil cover sheet.”
In House's civil case, she vacated a dismissal and judgment after the docket showed that the plaintiff had submitted an amended complaint before the deadline, although it appeared on the electronic docket after dismissal.
“Because plaintiff submitted her amended complaint in a timely manner, the Court will now review the amended complaint to determine whether it states a claim upon which relief may be granted and issue an order accordingly.”
Cautions
In Dimon v. City of Waukegan, Alexakis dismissed an ADA complaint with prejudice after finding it was filed one day beyond the 90 day right to sue period. The plaintiff’s unsupported assertion of a clerk error did not establish an earlier filing date or justify equitable tolling.
“In his response brief, Dimon states that ‘[t]he original Complaint was timely filed on December 27, 2023,’ but nothing in the record—for example, the docket itself or a sworn affidavit—supports that assertion.”
In one employment case, the court dismissed renewed retaliation claims with prejudice after the plaintiff had three opportunities to plead a viable theory. Repeating the same gap after leave to amend can end the claim.
“The fact that Sheth now has had three chances to articulate a retaliation theory to support her Title VII and IHRA claims, and has failed to do so, militates against giving her yet another opportunity.”
In Helmer, Alexakis dismissed the first amended complaint without prejudice and allowed another amendment by October 22, 2026, warning that missing the deadline would lead to dismissal of the federal claims with prejudice.
“A failure to file a second amended complaint by that deadline will result in dismissal of all federal claims with prejudice and the relinquishment of the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons explained above, Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California is granted. [89]. The Clerk is directed to transfer this action to the Northern District of California forthwith.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all counts. [112].”
“Local 241 now moves for summary judgment. [110]. For the reasons given below, that motion is granted.”
“CTA now moves for summary judgment. [115]. For the reasons given below, that motion is granted.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Albertsons' motion to strike Gibson's class allegations and grants Albertsons' motion to dismiss in part and denies it in part.”
“Accordingly, Gibson's Count III claim for breach of express warranty is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Because plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that presentation of their demands to AbbVie's board of directors would have been futile, defendants' motion is granted and plaintiffs' operative complaint is dismissed, although without prejudice.”
“For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion and order, the Court grants defendant Harting's motion for partial summary judgment [67], and Count II of Hanus's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. [136]. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgment in full.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Tucci’s motion to vacate the default judgment against FDATR and, with it, the final judgment against Tucci. [137].”
“In addition, the Court denies Tucci’s motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. [116].”
“SAIC moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [41]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants SAIC’s motion as to the Title VI claim and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.”
“For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Dunn committed perjury and concludes that dismissal of this matter with prejudice is the only appropriate and effective sanction. Defendants’ motion for sanctions is therefore granted. [83].”
“The remaining pending motions—plaintiff’s motions for partial summary judgment and Rule 37(e) sanctions and defendants’ motions for summary judgment and to withdraw an admission [86]—are denied as moot. [73], [76], [78], [86].”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 55 days (N = 3).
- Judge Alexakis has an active general civil and criminal calendar in Chicago.
- Her initial calendar included 293 civil cases reassigned from Judge Thomas M.
- Durkin on August 23, 2024, and she has since received new random assignments.
- The reviewed terminations cover only about ten months, so many dispositive motions remain pending.
- Some inherited cases contain earlier orders signed by Judge Durkin; only orders Judge Alexakis signed are attributed to her.
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 | 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 | 17 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 17 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 20 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 16 |
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 Alexakis: 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 Alexakis with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Alexakis, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Alexakis's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace