Jorge L. Alonso
How Judge Alonso rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Alonso
Jorge Luis Alonso is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Alonso received a commission on December 19, 2014.
Judge Alonso's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Alonso, 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
Motions
In bankruptcy appeals, principal briefs have a 30-page limit and replies a 15-page limit.
“Briefs on appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court must be filed in compliance with the deadlines set out in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8018. Any motions to extend time must be filed within the applicable briefing period. Principal briefs are limited to 30 pages and the reply brief 15 pages.”
Discovery
Continue discovery while a motion is pending; another party’s failure to respond does not excuse your own timely response.
“All parties must comply with the initial-disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Parties are advised that there is no ‘order’ in which discovery must occur. One party’s failure or inability to respond to discovery requests does not excuse any other party’s timely compliance. Parties also are reminded that the pendency of a motion–even a dispositive motion–does not operate as a stay of discovery.”
Discovery
A discovery motion must state specifically when and how the movant satisfied Local Rule 37.2’s conference requirement.
“Judge Alonso discourages the filing of discovery motions; the parties can and should work out most discovery disputes. The court will not hear or consider any discovery motion or non-dispositive dispute unless the movant has complied with the ‘meet and confer’ requirement of Local Rule 37.2. The motion must state with specificity when and how the movant complied with Local Rule 37.2.”
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 Alonso decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Schnepp v. Menard, Alonso granted the store summary judgment on a premises liability claim after treating properly supported facts as admitted where the plaintiff did not counter them with admissible evidence. A statement that an issue was for the jury did not controvert those facts.
“Where one party supports a fact with admissible evidence ... and the other party fails to controvert the fact with citation to admissible evidence ... the Court deems the fact admitted.”
In Frye v. Johnson & Johnson and related cases, Alonso remanded product-liability suits because the removing defendants did not show that the claims against a nondiverse defendant were utterly groundless, as fraudulent joinder required.
“Defendants must show not just that plaintiffs fail to state a claim but also that plaintiffs’ claims are utterly groundless such that they do not engage the jurisdiction of federal courts. Defendants have not attempted to do so.”
Procedural preferences
In Nadzhafaliyev v. Hardy, Alonso dismissed the patients’ federal due process suit without prejudice under Younger abstention because an Illinois court was already supervising their confinement conditions.
“Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of conditions of their confinement that are subject to ongoing supervision by an Illinois court under Illinois law. Under the Younger doctrine ... this Court must abstain from hearing such claims.”
In Correa v. Otto Engineering, Alonso granted a Rule 56(g) motion in part, treating the undisputed facts that supported an earlier summary judgment ruling as established for trial. He rejected the request as to additional facts the earlier ruling had not evaluated.
“The undisputed facts set forth on pages three to ten of the ... Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be treated as established for the purposes of the trial.”
Cautions
In Schnepp v. Menard, Alonso granted the store summary judgment on a slip-and-fall claim because evidence of recurring rock spills did not show a pattern of hazards left unattended for an unreasonable time.
“All plaintiff can show is that rock spills occurred, but what is necessary is evidence that such dangerous conditions were ignored. ... A pattern or practice of a particular type of spill is not necessary. What is needed is a pattern of dangerous conditions which were not attended to within a reasonable period of time.”
In Armour v. Mohan, Alonso granted prison officials summary judgment on PLRA exhaustion because the prisoner had not pursued the required grievance appeals and his belief that appeal would be futile did not excuse that failure.
“Plaintiff argues that he believed exhaustion would be futile, but it does not matter. There is no futility exception to § 1997e(a).”
In a design-patent preliminary-injunction request, the court found a bare claim of harm to reputation and goodwill insufficient without supporting evidence.
“Plaintiff’s assertion that it has suffered harm to its reputation and goodwill are simply bare allegations of harm, unsupported by argument or evidence.”
In one fax advertising case, the court granted summary judgment on one transmission but left another for trial because the sender had not proved prior permission. Evidence of permission mattered more than an abstract dispute about its legal definition.
“defendant did not put forth sufficient evidence to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, in any case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For all of these reasons, the Court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment [42]. Civil case terminated.”
“For all of these reasons, defendants’ motion [26] for summary judgment is granted ... This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust.”
“Because the Court grants summary judgment to defendants on their exhaustion affirmative defense, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim is denied as moot.”
“Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motions for remand.”
“the defendant City of Chicago’s motion to dismiss ... is granted in part and denied in part ... the City’s motion is granted as to Count IV, which is dismissed. ... the City’s motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff’s spoliation claim.”
“The Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine ... Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed, without prejudice to re-raising their claims before an appropriate Illinois court. Civil case terminated.”
“the Court, in its discretion, grants in part and denies in part Otto’s Rule 56(g) motion [103].”
“the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s motion to stay [50]. The motion to stay discovery is granted. However, finding that there is no benefit to delay the filing of an answer, Defendant is directed to file an answer ...”
“Because the Court finds that a stay is appropriate, Plaintiff’s motion to compel [61] is denied.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. [43]”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to exclude Dr. Lanning is denied. [47]”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss [18] is granted.”
“Defendants’ motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint [32] [37] are granted under Rule 12(b)(6) for the reasons stated above.”
“The Court grants Technogym S.p.A’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 78), denies without prejudice Krusenoski’s motion for leave to file exhibits under seal (ECF No. 91), and dismisses Krusenoski’s claims against Technogym S.p.A. without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 784 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 351 days (N = 9).
Judge Alonso's reviewed docket includes immigration, civil-rights, Social Security, employee-benefit, copyright, and health-care matters. The sampled merits decisions also address premises liability, prisoner litigation, product liability, municipal civil rights, civil commitment, disability discrimination, and biometric privacy. Case-type information was unavailable for some 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 | 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 | 19 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 30 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 41 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 46 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 59 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 72 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 91 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 21 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 21 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 20 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 17 |
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 Alonso: 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 Alonso with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Alonso, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Alonso's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace