James F. Holderman
Judge Holderman no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Holderman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A patent/IP specialist (co-author of the Federal Judicial Center's Patent Case Management Judicial Guide): he will resolve a patent case on a defendant's summary judgment of invalidity, finding asserted claims anticipated or obvious, which then moots the patentee's own infringement motion. Lead with validity.
“For the reasons set forth above, Tellabs' ‘Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,526,163’ (Dkt. No. 390-1) is granted in its entirety.”
On a Daubert challenge he tends not to exclude an opponent's expert before trial: a dispute over a damages expert's methodology (here, the hypothetical-negotiation date) is treated as cross-examination fodder for the jury, not a basis for pretrial exclusion. Attack the expert at trial, not by motion.
“At its best, this area of both experts' opinions is fodder for examination at trial before the jury, not grounds for pretrial exclusion in this case.”
Procedural preferences
He enforces briefing rules and waiver strictly: an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is deemed waived because the opponent had no chance to respond. Put every dispositive argument in the opening brief.
“Wal-Mart's argument in its reply brief ... comes too late. ... The party opposing summary judgment is not required to respond to grounds that were not raised by the movant.”
He polices subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte and strictly: a third-party complaint that does not establish an independent jurisdictional basis is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction rather than entertained on the merits.
“the Touhy firm's Third-Party Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Cautions
Reconsideration of a summary-judgment ruling is hard to obtain before him -- a losing party's motion to reconsider an SJ of non-infringement was denied. Make the record the first time.
“plaintiffs' ‘Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Nike's Motion for Summary judgment of Non-infringement of claim 1 of the '346 Patent Under the Doctrine of Equivalents’ [350] is denied.”
He reads a complaint closely enough to dismiss a fraud or fraud-based theory on the pleadings when the plaintiff's own allegations defeat it -- where a consumer admitted he never believed the collector's false statement, the common-law-fraud and civil-conspiracy counts were dismissed with prejudice for failure to plead reliance. Do not plead yourself out of court.
“Because Gros did not rely on the alleged false statement, he cannot assert a cause of action for common law fraud. Count III is therefore dismissed with prejudice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court grants summary judgment in favor of defendant New Age Transportation, Distribution and Warehousing, Inc. Judgment is ordered entered. The case is terminated in its entirety.”
“For the reasons stated above, Third-Party Defendants' ‘Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Stay’ (Dkt. No. 87) is granted and the Touhy firm's Third-Party Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“Third-Party Defendants' ‘Motion for Protective Order’ (Dkt. No. 92) is denied as moot.”
“For the foregoing reasons, OSFM and Foreman's Motion for Summary Judgment [28] is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants, Office of the State Fire Marshal and David Foreman, individually, and in his capacity as Illinois State Fire Marshal. This case is terminated.”
“Consequently, for the reasons stated above, Wexford's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is granted-in-part.”
“McCann's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29) is granted-in-full, and the claims against McCann are dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the reasons explained in the Statement section of this order, plaintiffs' ‘Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Nike's Motion for Summary judgment of Non-infringement of claim 1 of the '346 Patent Under the Doctrine of Equivalents’ [350] is denied.”
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff Fox's bill of costs (Dkt. No. 451) and fee petition (Dkt. No. 534) are granted.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Tellabs' ‘Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,526,163’ (Dkt. No. 390-1) is granted in its entirety.”
“Fujitsu Limited's ‘Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,526,163’ (Dkt. No. 606) is denied as moot.”
“the Wexford Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 205) is granted in part and denied in part: judgment is entered in favor of the Wexford Defendants on Counts I, II, III and IV and the Wexford Defendants' request for attorneys' fees is denied.”
“Hetman's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 209) is granted and judgment is entered in favor of Hetman on Counts I, II, and III.”
“the Addus Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 213) is granted in part and denied in part: judgment is entered in favor of the Addus Defendants on Counts I, II, and III and summary judgment is denied as to Count V.”
“defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 40), is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count II is denied. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts III, IV and V is granted. Counts III and V are dismissed with prejudice; Count IV is dismissed without prejudice. Gros is granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint ... for purposes of pleading his actual damages with specificity in regards to Count IV.”
“For the reasons set forth above, this court grants summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, JPMorgan. The court has not considered damages at this time.”
“For the reasons set forth above, defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s ‘Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56’ (Dkt. No. 52) is denied.”
“HumanaDental's motion to dismiss Brodsky's 2010 Complaint (Dkt. No. 14) is denied.”
“the court grants HumanaDental's motion to strike the 2010 Complaint's references to other unnamed consumer protection statutes and the request for injunctive relief under the Consumer Fraud Act.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 57 days (N = 5).
Former CHIEF JUDGE (2006-2013) of N.D. Ill.; Reagan appointee, IP/patent-heavy docket; presided over parts of the United States v. Blagojevich corruption case (authorized release of the Blagojevich wiretap recordings) and the Ligas v. Maram disability-rights class action (decertified the class). 2009-2013 the docket slice is a mix of employment (Title VII civil-rights jobs), prisoner Section 1983, ERISA fund-collection, consumer-statute (FDCPA/890), and patent matters.
A historical record
Judge Holderman no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.