Martha Maria Pacold
How Judge Pacold decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
A textualist, Erie-restrained reader of state law: sitting in diversity she is bound by the Illinois Supreme Court and refuses to expand Illinois causes of action (e.g. negligent-misrepresentation duty) beyond their existing bounds, even where other states recognize a broader rule. Argue Illinois law as it is, not as it might become.
“This court is bound by the Illinois Supreme Court's interpretation of Illinois law and cannot expand negligent misrepresentation claims beyond their current bounds.”
At summary judgment she holds the non-movant strictly to its burden of production: speculation, 'metaphysical possibility,' or conclusory inferences will not defeat a well-supported motion. The party who bears the burden of proof at trial must point to affirmative record evidence (here, evidence of an unnatural accumulation; elsewhere, evidence of a future injury for standing).
“Speculation about the cause of the accumulation does not suffice to defeat summary judgment.”
Procedural preferences
She keeps the procedural postures clean and distinct. On a Rule 12(c) (or 12(b)(6)) motion she confines herself to the pleadings and will NOT consider extrinsic documents attached to the motion unless they are incorporated by reference or judicially noticeable; she will not convert to summary judgment sua sponte when neither party asked. A defendant with an evidence-dependent affirmative defense (limitations, etc.) should raise it on summary judgment, not the pleadings.
“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.”
On forum disputes she resolves the easiest dispositive issue first and applies the right statute: venue for a REMOVED case is governed by 28 U.S.C. 1441(a) (not the general 1391 statute both sides briefed), and a 1404(a) transfer is a flexible, case-by-case weighing of convenience and the interests of justice in which the plaintiff's chosen forum loses force when it has weak connections to the operative facts.
“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).”
Cautions
Article III standing is policed hard at summary judgment, especially for declaratory/injunctive relief: a past injury is not enough; the plaintiff must adduce evidence of a 'certainly impending' or 'substantial risk' of FUTURE injury. A favorable standing ruling at the motion-to-dismiss stage does not carry over, because the SJ question (evidence of future risk) differs from the pleading question.
“a past injury alone is insufficient to establish standing for purposes of prospective injunctive relief.”
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.
| Summary judgment N = 3 |
Granted: 2Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to transfer N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Judgment on the pleadings N = 1 |
Denied: 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.
“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.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 181 days (N = 19).
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).