Jeremy Christen Daniel
How Judge Daniel rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Daniel
Jeremy Christen Daniel is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Daniel received a commission on June 6, 2023.
Judge Daniel's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Daniel, 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.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Request a remote appearance through the courtroom deputy at least 24 hours before the hearing.
“To do so, the party must contact the Courtroom Deputy, either by email or telephone, at least twenty-four hours prior to the scheduled appearance.”
Motions
File motions at least three business days before their hearing except in exceptional circumstances.
“Absent exceptional circumstances, parties must file motions at least three business days before Judge Daniel hears the motion.”
Motions
Attach a proposed order to the motion and email a Word version to the court’s proposed-order address.
“To do so, a party must (1) file the proposed order as an attachment to its motion and (2) submit a word version of the proposed order to the following email address: [email protected].”
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 Daniel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the HireVue biometric-privacy case, Daniel left several fact-specific dismissal arguments for summary judgment, including a defense that depended on whether the defendant qualified for the statutory financial-institution exemption.
“Because many of HireVue’s arguments are fact-specific, the Court declines to decide their merits prior to summary judgment.”
Procedural preferences
In Brown’s employment-discrimination case, Daniel considered allegations in the self-represented plaintiff’s response to the dismissal motion that were consistent with the amended complaint. He also rejected the employer’s argument that Brown forfeited a claim by not addressing it in his response.
“But Ferrara expects too much of a pro se litigant.”
In the Allstate consumer-privacy case, Daniel declined to consider disputed app agreements and registration screens on a motion to dismiss because their authenticity, timing, and acceptance raised factual questions.
“Presuming the proposed exhibits’ authenticity and relevance inverts this requirement.”
Cautions
In Brown’s Title VII case, Daniel dismissed failure-to-hire claims outside the scope of the plaintiff’s EEOC charge. He explained that the expired charge-filing period made a dismissal without prejudice functionally equivalent to one with prejudice.
“Brown’s failure to hire claims are clearly outside of the scope of his EEOC charge and therefore must be dismissed. ... Because more than three hundred days have passed since the alleged failure to hire, ‘there is no practical distinction between a dismissal without prejudice and a dismissal with prejudice.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court concludes that it may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over HireVue and denies the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion.”
“the Court grants Defendant HireVue Inc.’s motion to dismiss in part and denies it in part. ... The Court also grants HireVue’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to the plaintiffs’ claims under § 15(c) of the BIPA. The motion is denied as to all other claims.”
“Defendant Ferrara Candy Company’s motion to dismiss, R. 22, is granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiff’s ‘failure to hire’ claims are dismissed with prejudice.”
“The L2 Defendants’ and Matthews Defendants’ motions to dismiss (R. 289; R. 294; R. 296; R. 297; R. 298) are denied.”
“Lambert and Neary’s motion to dismiss (R. 285) is denied in part and granted in part. As to Lambert, the motion is denied with respect to count I and granted with respect to counts II and III. The motion is granted as to Neary.”
“The Haseotes’ motion to dismiss (R. 290) is granted.”
“The Court denies (1) Defendant Roseland Community Hospital Association’s motion to dismiss, R. 48; (2) Defendants Terril Applewhite and Five Apples Inpatient Specialists’ motion to dismiss, R. 50; and (3) Defendant American Medical Lab’s motions to dismiss, R. 52, 53.”
“the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims, R. 44, is granted in part and denied in part.”
“Plaintiff Shawn Parker’s motion to strike Defendant Justin Parker’s affirmative defenses, R. 43, is granted in part and denied in part”
“the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, R. 45, is denied in its entirety.”
“Soelect’s motion to strike is granted in part and denied in part”
“Soelect’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part”
“HATCI’s motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety.”
“For the reasons stated in this order, Defendant Hyundai American Technical Center, Inc.'s motion for partial reconsideration 164 is denied. The September 25, 2024, status hearing is stricken. All pretrial deadlines stand. Signed by the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel on 9/23/2024.”
“Defendant Health Care Service Corporation’s partial motion to dismiss, R. 14, is granted. The Court dismisses Plaintiff Leonard S.’s Section 155 claim for statutory damages. This dismissal is without prejudice to Leonard filing an amended complaint by December 1, 2023.”
“Ardagh Metal Packaging USA Corp.’s partial motion to dismiss Defendant American Craft Brewery, LLC’s counterclaims [32] is granted in part and denied in part”
“its motion to strike affirmative defenses [34] is granted”
“its motion for judgment on the pleadings [70] is granted.”
“Heartland’s motion to dismiss, (R. 29.), is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants Heartland’s motion as to Counts II, III, IV, V, and VI. These claims are dismissed without prejudice.”
“Defendant Datanyze, LLC’s motion to dismiss, (R. 15), is denied. The Defendant will have 21 days to answer the complaint.”
“The defendants’ motion to dismiss [10] is denied. The defendants shall answer the complaint by January 31, 2024.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 294 days (N = 14).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 182 days (N = 9).
- Sampled from his earliest terminated civil dockets (filed 2022-2023, terminated 2024-2025).
- Mix is insurance (Miller v. MemberSelect, Brookfield v. Selective), ERISA (T. v. BlueCross BlueShield of IL), FCRA (Sanches v. Trans Union), employment/civil-rights (Williams v. Menasha, Santiago v. KBP Foods), ADA Title III access (several), copyright/IP (Strike 3 Holdings), and an FCA case (US v. Infinity Healthcare).
- His published reasoning orders also include BIPA biometric-privacy and Title VII matters.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 27 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 27 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 32 |
| Mar 2025 | 9 | 35 |
| Sep 2024 | 19 | 38 |
| Mar 2024 | 55 | 30 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 24 |
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 Daniel: 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 Daniel with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Daniel, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Daniel's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace