Jeremy Christen Daniel
How Judge Daniel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At the pleading stage he repeatedly declines to resolve fact-intensive affirmative defenses and statutory-interpretation arguments (in BIPA cases: extraterritoriality, preclusion by the AI Video Interview Act, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 'financial institution' exemption), postponing them to summary judgment after a record is developed. Don't expect him to kill a well-pleaded BIPA claim on a fact-specific defense at 12(b)(6).
“Because many of HireVue’s arguments are fact-specific, the Court declines to decide their merits prior to summary judgment.”
Procedural preferences
He gives pro se plaintiffs liberal construction and will consider factual allegations raised in a pro se response brief (so long as consistent with the complaint), and refuses to hold a pro se litigant to the waiver/forfeiture rules that apply to represented parties.
“A pro se plaintiff may ‘simply rest on the assumed truthfulness and liberal construction afforded his complaint’ ... Lee does not help Ferrara because it involved litigants who, unlike Brown, had retained counsel.”
Cautions
Title VII claims outside the scope of the plaintiff's EEOC charge are dismissed for failure to exhaust -- and with prejudice where the 300-day window to file a new charge has already run. Make sure every theory (e.g., failure-to-hire vs. discharge) appears in the EEOC charge.
“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: 265 days (N = 3).
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.
Put Judge Daniel's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Daniel actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Daniel's own signed orders and cites them.