Martha Maria Pacold
How Judge Pacold rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pacold
Martha Maria Pacold is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Pacold received a commission on August 16, 2019.
Judge Pacold's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pacold, 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
Conferences
For reassigned cases, file a joint status report of no more than five pages at least five business days before the conference.
“To help the Court learn about the case, at least 5 business days before the reassignment status conference, counsel are to confer, prepare, and file a joint status report, not to exceed five pages.”
Other
In patent cases, file the joint 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 initial 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 Pacold decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Clarke v. DPWN Holdings, Pacold dismissed a negligent-misrepresentation claim with prejudice because Illinois law did not recognize the asserted duty in that employment dispute and a federal diversity court could not expand the state cause of action.
“This court is bound by the Illinois Supreme Court's interpretation of Illinois law and cannot expand negligent misrepresentation claims beyond their current bounds.”
In Pearson v. Walmart, Pacold granted summary judgment on a slip-and-fall claim because the plaintiff offered no affirmative evidence that the water came from an unnatural source rather than tracked-in rain. She rejected speculation about another possible source.
“Pearson has not met this burden. Although Pearson contends that the liquid ‘could’ have come from an alternate source—such as a product that might have spilled from one customer’s bag or from another customer’s shopping cart, see [52] at 4, 6—she has not put forward any affirmative evidence in support of this theory.”
In a September 2026 disability accommodation case, the court found an offered remote teaching assignment reasonable even though the professor preferred different classes. The plaintiff needed evidence that the offered arrangement was unreasonable, not merely that her preferred arrangement was possible.
“Defendants did not have to offer the best possible accommodation within their power, only a reasonable one.”
Procedural preferences
In Larkin v. Board of Education, Pacold denied judgment on the pleadings on a limitations defense. She declined to consider emails attached to the motion because they were outside the pleadings and neither party sought conversion to summary judgment; the defendant could renew the argument at that stage.
“in the context of a Rule 12(c) motion, the court is not convinced that it would be appropriate to consider the emails and other documents attached to the motion.”
In McGowan v. Camp Agawak, Pacold denied an improper-venue motion because § 1441(a) governed the removed action, then transferred the case to Wisconsin under § 1404(a) based on its stronger connection to that forum.
“venue in a case removed from state court is governed not by Section 1391 but by a different statutory provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).”
In one labor agreement dispute, the court allowed a federal civil rights claim to proceed because the grievance procedure did not clearly require arbitration of statutory rights. A party seeking to divert a statutory claim to arbitration must identify unmistakable agreement language.
“the CBA’s grievance procedures do not clearly and unmistakably apply to such a claim.”
Cautions
In Castro v. Dart, Pacold granted the defendants summary judgment on standing because the plaintiffs sought prospective relief but showed only past harm under an expired agreement and no sufficient future risk.
“a past injury alone is insufficient to establish standing for purposes of prospective injunctive relief.”
In one truck-driver wage case, a common worker-classification question did not suffice for class certification when deduction and reimbursement questions required driver-specific proof after classification was resolved.
“Here, complex and individualized questions about deductions and reimbursements would remain, without a common method of answering many of them.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The motion to dismiss is granted, and the amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the reasons above, Walmart's motion for summary judgment [49], is granted.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied. Enter final judgment.”
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“The motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.”
“The motion to transfer under § 1404(a) is granted. The case is transferred to the Western District of Wisconsin.”
“The motion for judgment on the pleadings [45] is denied.”
“motion for summary judgment [58] is granted”
“motion for summary judgment [60] is denied”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss, [89], is granted and the amended complaint, [74], is dismissed.”
“The pending motion to dismiss, [18], is denied as moot.”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [22], is granted.”
“Thus, plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, [14], is denied.”
“Defendants Frank Hoefflin, Holcim Ltd., and Holcim (US) Inc.’s motions to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, [27], [30], are granted.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery, [43], is denied as moot.”
“So rather than dismiss, the court strikes the pending motion [123] to allow the parties sufficient time to conduct jurisdictional discovery and then ‘argue the jurisdictional issue.’”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 181 days (N = 19).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 116 days (N = 1).
Active Eastern Division (Chicago) civil + criminal docket. Sampled nature-of-suit mix spans employment / civil rights (ADA, Title VII, 1983), prisoner civil rights and habeas, consumer credit (FCRA/FDCPA), Schedule A IP-counterfeiting (trademark/copyright), product liability, insurance/ERISA, labor, and contract/commercial; also a felony criminal docket (e.g. 20-cr-00066, 21-cr-00503).
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 | 2 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 36 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 36 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 41 |
| Mar 2025 | 8 | 45 |
| Sep 2024 | 29 | 49 |
| Mar 2024 | 97 | 69 |
| Sep 2023 | 96 | 82 |
| Mar 2023 | 89 | 98 |
| Sep 2022 | 60 | 96 |
| Mar 2022 | 78 | 97 |
| Sep 2021 | 98 | 88 |
| Mar 2021 | 99 | 75 |
| Sep 2020 | 77 | 58 |
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 Pacold: 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 Pacold with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pacold, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pacold's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace