John Fitzgerald Kness
How Judge Kness decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Schedule A trademark/counterfeiting cases he polices specific personal jurisdiction hard: merely operating an interactive online marketplace (Wish, Amazon, etc.) that an Illinois resident could view is NOT purposeful availment. A plaintiff who cannot show the defendant actually shipped an infringing product to Illinois (or has some other forum-directed contact) should expect dismissal. Frame jurisdictional allegations around concrete forum-directed sales, not the mere possibility of one.
“Because Defendant did not purposefully avail itself of the privileges of conducting business in this District, the Court finds that it lacks specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant.”
Strongly enforces arbitration delegation: where a contract incorporates the AAA Rules, he treats that as clear-and-unmistakable evidence that gateway arbitrability — even whether a related agreement or a preliminary-injunction request is arbitrable — belongs to the arbitrator, not the court. He stays (rather than dismisses) and routes interim/injunctive relief to the arbitrator. Do not expect him to retain equitable issues that the arbitration clause plausibly reaches.
“The incorporation [of the AAA Rules] is clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator.”
Procedural preferences
He refuses to resolve affirmative defenses — qualified immunity, statutory immunity (Illinois Tort Immunity Act), punitive-damages immunity — on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when the complaint states a plausible claim. The existence of a defense does not defeat a well-pleaded claim; raise immunity at summary judgment, not on the pleadings.
“a plaintiff may state a claim even though there is a defense to that claim.”
When he dismisses claims on a 12(b)(6) motion he typically does so without prejudice and gives a fixed, short window (here 21 days) to replead, with the dismissal auto-converting to one with prejudice if no amended pleading follows. But where amendment would be futile as a matter of law (e.g. an unambiguous ERISA anti-assignment clause), he dismisses WITH prejudice and denies leave to amend.
“Any party that wishes to replead a dismissed claim must do so within 21 days of the entry of this order; otherwise, the dismissal automatically converts to one with prejudice.”
Cautions
Fraud and fraud-based counterclaims must satisfy Rule 9(b): he dismisses where he cannot 'glean the method of fraud' — the who, what, when, and how — from the pleading. Plead the specific false representation and mechanism, not a conclusory scheme.
“Without a more fulsome statement of the “who, what, when, and how” of the alleged scheme, the Court cannot determine how Plaintiff is alleged to have committed fraud.”
On a deliberate-indifference (medical) claim premised on DELAYED care, he requires 'verifying medical evidence' that the delay itself (not the underlying injury) caused harm — typically expert testimony. A plaintiff's diagnosis and treatment records alone, or mere disagreement with the course of treatment, will not survive summary judgment.
“Plaintiff does not offer any “verifying medical evidence,” such as testimony by a medical expert, ... that the delay in his treatment ... caused or exacerbated his injury.”
Rule 11 sanctions motions get a cold reception unless backed by proof: he treats bare attorney assertions that the opponent's filing was 'knowingly false' or filed for an improper purpose as 'neither proof nor evidence,' and denies sanctions absent a substantiated showing of an inadequate pre-suit inquiry or improper purpose.
“Easy Healthcare has not demonstrated any of MFB’s filings were far enough off the mark that they were baseless. Rule 11 sanctions, therefore, are unwarranted.”
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.
| Motions to dismiss N = 5 |
Granted: 3Granted in part: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to compel arbitration N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for sanctions N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“Because Magee cannot, as a matter of law, establish that McDonald’s USA violated Title III of the ADA, the motion for summary judgment of McDonald’s USA is granted.”
“Defendants Brown and Tedesco’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 106) is granted as to Defendant Tedesco and denied as to Defendant Brown.”
“Defendants Omeke and Yu’s separate motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 109) is granted.”
“For the above reasons, Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss is granted.”
“Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is granted as to Defendant’s fraud claim and otherwise denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 94) is granted.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration (Dkt. 16) is granted in part; ... In all other respects, the case is stayed pending resolution of the requested arbitration.”
“Easy Healthcare has not demonstrated any of MFB’s filings were far enough off the mark that they were baseless. Rule 11 sanctions, therefore, are unwarranted.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 13) is denied.”
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. 8, 23) are granted. Complaint dismissed with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 213 days (N = 15).
Sampled via two filing windows (2020-06..2021-06 and 2021-07..2022-03) plus a current-docket pull. His civil docket is heavy on 'Schedule A' IP/counterfeiting suits (trademark/patent/copyright), FCRA/consumer-credit (Experian, TransUnion, Credit First), ADA Title III access, employment, and 1983 detainee claims; he also carries a criminal calendar (cr cases excluded from the duration sample). Current 2026 filings remain pending.