John Zihun Lee
How Judge Lee rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Lee left this court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Lee
John Zihun Lee was a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Lee received a commission on May 8, 2012. Judge Lee left the court on September 12, 2022 on appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
How Judge Lee decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On the threshold question of the standard of proof in a patent-eligibility challenge, he held that the clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard governs only factual disputes and has no role in the purely legal Section 101 inquiry.
“the Court is persuaded that the clear-and-convincing standard has no role to play in the § 101 determination at issue in this case”
As a Rule 702 gatekeeper in a toxic-tort case, he required expert causation testimony tied to the plaintiff's own exposure level, treating a wholesale failure to quantify individual dosage as fatal to admissibility even where the general theory was theoretically possible.
“In contrast to the plaintiff in Schultz, Krik does not offer any expert testimony as to how much asbestos exposure he experienced and whether that dosage of exposure was sufficient to cause his lung cancer.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For all of the reasons above, Defendants’ motion to decertify Plaintiffs’ class [199] is denied.”
“the Court denies Defendants’ motion to decer-tify the class and grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment”
“the Court grants CitiMortgage’s motion for summary judgment [22]. CitiMortgage is dismissed as a defendant”
“Count I is dismissed without prejudice, Count II is dismissed with prejudice, and Count III may proceed”
“For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motions are denied.”
“the Court denies IH2’s motion to dismiss [12]”
“the Court grants Lakeshore’s motion for summary judgment [47] on the Loss of Earnings contract claim in the amount of $250,000. The Court denies Lakeshore’s motion as to the Hull Repair claim and its claim under 215 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/155.”
“The Court denies Acadia’s motion for summary judgment [52] on Lakeshore’s Loss of Earnings contract claim but grants it on the other *1060two claims.”
“Acadia’s motions to strike [49, 50] are denied”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss [223] is denied.”
“the Court denies Defendant William Adkins motion for qualified immunity [61].”
“The Court grants in part and denies in part NSMA’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint [102]. NSMA’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint asserting an unreasonable search and invasion of privacy claim under the U.S. Constitution (Count I) and the Illinois Constitution (Count II) is denied with prejudice.”
“the Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [92].”
“The Court denies Plaintiffs motion to reopen discovery and compel [112]”
“Defendants Crane Co.’s, Marley-Wy-lain’s, and Exxon/Mobil’s Motions to Exclude the ‘Each and Every Exposure’ Opinion offered by Drs. Frank and. Brody (dkt.62, 73, 77) are granted;”
“Defendants Owens-Illinois’ and Exxon/Mobil’s Motions to Exclude the ‘Any Exposure’ Opinion offered by Dr. Frank (dkt.66, 77) are granted;”
“Defendants Marley-Wylain’s and Exxon/Mobil’s Motions to Exclude the ‘Single Fiber Theory’ of Dr. Frank and any others (Weil, Mobil) (dkt.71, 77) are granted; and”
“Defendant Exxon/Mobil’s Motion to Bar the Expert Opinions of Frank and Parker (dkt.67, 76, 77) is granted in part and denied in part.”
“For the reasons given above, the Court denies Comcast’s motion to dismiss.”
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Lee was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2022.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 406 |
| Sep 2021 | 7 | 152 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 142 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 119 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Lee left this court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.