Maria Valdez

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 8 signed orders read

How Judge Valdez decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Procedural preferences

On consent, she decides Social Security appeals to final judgment and will affirm the ALJ where the decision is supported (denying the claimant's motion to reverse/remand and granting the Commissioner's cross-motion). A claimant should not assume a remand; build the substantial-evidence record carefully.

“For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion to reverse or remand the Commissioner's decision [Doc. No. 16] is denied, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 21] is granted.”

On discovery she tends to split the difference, granting a motion to compel in part and denying it in part rather than ordering wholesale production. Tailor the requests; an all-or-nothing motion is likely to be only partly granted.

“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [Doc. No. 39] is granted in part and denied in part.”

Cautions

On consent she will award substantial statutory attorney's fees to a prevailing party (here $164,955.37). A defendant litigating a fee-shifting claim before her on consent faces real exposure on a full fee petition.

“Plaintiff is awarded $164,955.37 in attorney's fees.”

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.

Social security review
N = 2
Denied: 2 counts only
Motions to dismiss
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Preliminary injunction
N = 1
Denied: 1 counts only
Motions to compel
N = 1
Granted in part: 1 counts only
Motion to bar testimony
N = 1
Granted in part: 1 counts only
Motion for attorney fees
N = 1
Granted: 1 counts only
Motion to enforce settlement
N = 1
Granted: 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.

Kaczmarek v. Berryhill (Acting Commissioner of Social Security)
1:17-cv-02785 · 2018-11-28
Social security review (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 19] is denied and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 27] is granted.”

Larry H. v. Kijakazi (Acting Commissioner of Social Security)
1:20-cv-05354 · 2022-09-28
Social security review (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion to reverse or remand the Commissioner's decision [Doc. No. 16] is denied, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 21] is granted.”

Heard v. Dart (Cook County Sheriff)
1:14-cv-09205 · 2015-10-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [Doc. No. 13] is denied.”

UNITE HERE Health v. La Plaza Secaucus, LLC and Rosdev Hospitality Secaucus, L.P.
1:13-cv-00237 · 2014-01-27
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 20] is denied.”

Resurrection Healthcare and Factory Mutual Insurance Co. v. GE Health Care
1:07-cv-05980 · 2009-03-16
Motions to compel (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [Doc. No. 39] is granted in part and denied in part.”

Petrovic v. City of Chicago, et al.
1:06-cv-06111 · 2008-03-21
Motion to bar testimony (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion to Bar J. Thomas' Testimony or in the Alternative to Depose Thomas [Doc. No. 180] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”

Brogato v. Proviso Township Mental Health Commission, et al.
1:04-cv-07493 · 2008-03-31
Motion for attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff is awarded $164,955.37 in attorney's fees.”

Cotton v. Adams, et al. (City of Chicago police officers)
1:16-cv-04565 · 2017-02-23
Motion to enforce settlement (defendant) Granted

“It is for those aforementioned reasons; the Court respectfully recommends that Defendants' Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement [Doc. No. 42] be GRANTED.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Valdez is an active magistrate judge; her enumerable docket docket under 'Maria G. Valdez' in 2026 is duty-magistrate work (sealed/suppressed search-warrant and grand-jury mc matters, criminal duty assignments). Her civil reasoning work — Social Security consent dispositions, consent civil rulings (12(b)(6), preliminary injunction, fee petitions), referred discovery, witness-bar motions, and settlement-enforcement R&Rs — is reflected in the GovInfo reasoning layer. She is known for e-discovery expertise and settlement mediation (endorsed The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation).