John Joseph Tharp, Jr.
How Judge Tharp rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tharp
John Joseph Tharp Jr. serves as a senior judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Barack Obama, he received his commission on May 16, 2012, and assumed senior status on September 30, 2026.
Judge Tharp's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Tharp, 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
Other
In patent cases, file a joint initial report at least seven days before the hearing.
“At least 7 days prior to the initial status hearing in a patent case, the parties must file a joint report, in the format and including the information required by LPR Appendix A.”
Other
File the template joint report at least seven days before the hearing.
“At least 7 days prior to the initial status hearing, the parties must file a joint report, in the format and including the information required by the template at the link below.”
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 Tharp decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Treats a complaint as a statement of a CLAIM (a set of facts producing an injury), not a menu of legal theories. A plaintiff who pleads enough facts survives even if the labeled counts or cited statutes are imperfect; legal theories are developed after the pleadings.
“One set of facts producing one injury creates one claim for relief, no matter how many laws the deeds violate.”
In Simmons v. Illinois Department of Corrections, Tharp denied dismissal of a claim based on denied assistance with eye drops. He declined to eliminate one legal theory at the pleading stage because another theory plausibly supported the same claim.
“Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the dismissal of claims, not legal theories.”
Procedural preferences
In Solo Laboratories v. DRM Holdings, Tharp deemed the plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 facts admitted after the defendant failed to respond to the summary judgment motion or controvert the numbered statement.
“All material facts set forth in the moving party's statement are deemed admitted unless controverted by the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.”
In United States v. Romero, Tharp denied a limitations based motion to dismiss a third party complaint. The pleadings did not establish when Romero knew of his injury, so they did not supply everything needed for the affirmative defense.
“Therefore, the pleadings themselves do not set forth everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations, and the motion to dismiss cannot be granted based on noncompliance with the statute of limitations.”
In a 2013 judicial profile, Tharp said he disfavored requests for relief made after a deadline had passed. He also described a preference for referring settlement conferences to magistrate judges and said he had adopted Judge Amy St. Eve’s pretrial order.
“he does not subscribe to the ‘better to ask forgiveness than permission’ school of litigating.”
In the Zillow antitrust action, he compelled arbitration and stayed the claims, while separately evaluating preliminary relief; the arbitration ruling did not dispose of the injunction motion.
“Although the Court compels arbitration and stays this action pending arbitration, that ruling does not moot Zillow’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief.”
Cautions
In Thomas v. Today’s Growth Consultant, Tharp rejected the defendant’s reading of binding precedent on integration clauses and sharply criticized its attempt to distinguish the controlling case.
“TGC's efforts to transform Vigortone from sow's ear to silk purse are so devoid of merit that they are difficult to excuse as good faith error.”
In Simmons v. Illinois Department of Corrections, Tharp criticized a dismissal argument that quoted precedent selectively and described the broader contention as bordering on frivolous.
“This argument borders on the frivolous.”
In Regalado v. Linaweaver, Tharp treated supported Local Rule 56.1 facts as admitted after the self-represented plaintiff failed to respond, then granted summary judgment on exhaustion grounds.
“A non-movant’s failure to respond to a Local Rule 56.1 statement of fact that is supported by the record results in that fact being considered admitted.”
In a September 2026 challenge to an Illinois law, the court denied preliminary relief because the plaintiffs had not shown a concrete, imminent injury traceable to a named defendant or irreparable harm. A requested injunction must target conduct the named official can perform or stop.
“they fail to establish that they have a concrete and imminent future injury that is traceable to the action or inaction of any named defendant.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Wexford defendants' motion to dismiss [68] is granted in part and denied in part.”
“The IDOC defendants' motion to dismiss [83] is denied.”
“The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“The defendant's motion for summary judgment [42] is granted. Final judgment for the defendant shall enter.”
“For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.”
“the Court grants Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (R. 22), and dismisses the complaint with prejudice.”
“the City’s motion to dismiss is granted”
“Goodman and Farpoint’s motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part”
“GRIT’s motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part”
“defendant Tubi’s motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss are both denied”
“the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted”
“the plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part and the defendant’s partial motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part”
“The plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the defendant’s expert is denied as moot”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 192 days (N = 17).
- Active, high-volume Eastern Division (Chicago) docket; per his 2013 ISBA profile his caseload then exceeded 375 cases with about two new cases per day.
- The January 2019 filing cohort skews to prisoner civil-rights cases (Rowlette, Hilliard, Bailey), consumer-credit litigation (Siegel), ERISA fund collection (Pipe Fitters Local), employment disputes (Todd, Morgan, Dutton), contract and diversity matters (Deutsche Leasing, Penny), an ANDA patent case (Beloteca v. Apicore), and the BIPA biometric-privacy class action Cothron v. White Castle.
- The December 2024 window shows current intake dominated by Schedule A intellectual-property counterfeiting suits, other trademark and patent cases, immigration mandamus actions, FOIA litigation, benefit-fund collection, and employment cases.
- This describes caseload composition rather than a counted distribution.
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 | 94 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 46 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 94 | 46 |
| Sep 2025 | 86 | 43 |
| Mar 2025 | 109 | 39 |
| Sep 2024 | 111 | 43 |
| Mar 2024 | 95 | 40 |
| Sep 2023 | 83 | 42 |
| Mar 2023 | 58 | 44 |
| Sep 2022 | 77 | 52 |
| Mar 2022 | 93 | 41 |
| Sep 2021 | 92 | 30 |
| Mar 2021 | 101 | 24 |
| Sep 2020 | 87 | 28 |
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 Tharp: 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 Tharp with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tharp, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tharp's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace