Jeffrey Irvine Cummings
How Judge Cummings decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Social Security appeals he applies ordinary substantial-evidence review and remands where the ALJ's analysis is deficient (e.g. a finding of medical improvement or a step-five conclusion not supported by substantial evidence, or a failure to address a significant favorable finding), but affirms where the ALJ properly assessed and incorporated the medical evidence. In this small slice he remanded 5 of 7 SSA appeals; treat the lean toward remand as illustrative, not a rate.
“The Court agrees that the ALJ's finding of medical improvement is not supported by substantial evidence and that this error requires remand.”
On FDCPA statutory damages he sided with the (minority) view that a defendant's policies and procedures are admissible to show intent and the nature of the noncompliance, reasoning it better serves the Congressional purpose of statutory damages (creating an incentive to obey the law) even though the cited caselaw majority view was to the contrary.
“Although the caselaw cited by defendants appears to represent the majority view of the courts that have considered this issue, the caselaw cited by plaintiff appears to better align with the Congressional purpose underlying statutory damages (namely, to “create an incentive to obey the law,” Strange, 796 F.Supp. at 1120) by allowing consideration of evidence of a defendant’s policies and procedures where they arguably led to the FDCPA violation.”
Procedural preferences
Conducts a careful personal-jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)) analysis and will dismiss a defendant for want of general or specific jurisdiction on the record before him, mooting the rest of that defendant's motion rather than reaching it.
“Accordingly, the Court finds on this record that it has neither general nor specific jurisdiction over Google, and it therefore grants Google's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
Cautions
Treats undeveloped, perfunctory arguments as waived — a counsel who does not develop an argument with citation to supporting evidence/authority can lose it on that ground alone. Seen in an SSA appeal denial; the same waiver principle (citing Spath v. Hays Wheels) appears in his district-era summary-judgment reasoning.
“Claimant's arguments are largely undeveloped and, accordingly, are waived.”
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.
| Social security review N = 7 |
Granted: 5Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 3 |
Granted: 3 | counts only |
| Motion in limine N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to compel arbitration N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to transfer N = 1 |
Granted: 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, Claimant's motion to reverse the Commissioner's decision to deny him DIBs, (Dckt. #15), is granted and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, (Dckt. #21), is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Claimant's motion for summary remand (Dckt. #20) is granted and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment is denied (Dckt. #27, 28).”
“For the foregoing reasons, Claimant's motion for summary judgment (Dckt. #17), is granted and the Commissioner's request to affirm the decision, (Dckt. #23), is denied.”
“For the foregoing reason, Claimant's motion for summary remand (Dckt. #18) is granted and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Dckt. #26) is denied.”
“Claimant's motion to reverse the Commissioner's decision to deny her SSI benefits (Dckt. #20) is granted and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Dckt. #21) is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Claimant's motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner, (Dckt. #17), is denied and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, (Dckt. # 20), is granted. The decision of the ALJ is affirmed.”
“For the reasons that follow, Claimant's motion for summary judgment, (Dckt. #14), is denied.”
“the Court holds that evidence of defendants' policies and procedures is relevant and admissible to the determination of the amount of statutory damages that the jury may award to plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1692k(b)(1).”
“The Court grants in part the motion to compel arbitration.”
“Meta Platform, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, (Dckt. #45), and defendant Microsoft Corporation's motion to dismiss, (Dckt. #48), are granted and plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims against them are dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the claims in the District of Massachusetts.”
“Meta Platform, Inc.'s motion to dismiss, (Dckt. #45), and defendant Microsoft Corporation's motion to dismiss, (Dckt. #48), are granted and plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims against them are dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the claims in the District of Massachusetts.”
“the portion of defendant Google LLC's motion to dismiss, (Dckt. #51), premised on Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted and the remainder of the motion is denied as moot.”
“Nebula Genomics, Inc.'s motion to transfer, or in the alternative, to dismiss, (Dckt. #54), is granted as to the motion to transfer, and denied as to the request to dismiss on grounds of mootness.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 112 days (N = 19).
His enumerable docket docket is his Oct-2023-onward district-judge assignments. The 2024 sample shows a typical N.D. Ill. Eastern-Division (Chicago) civil mix plus a criminal calendar. A notable cluster: numerous CDK Global, LLC cases (the In re CDK Global Data Security Consumer Litigation group, NOS 360/380/190) were assigned to him and terminated together on consolidation. Many short-duration terminations are state-court removals later remanded or settled, voluntary dismissals, or 'Schedule A' trademark/copyright enforcement actions.