Marvin E. Aspen
How Judge Aspen rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Aspen
Marvin E. Aspen is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter, Judge Aspen received a commission on July 24, 1979. Judge Aspen assumed senior status on July 1, 2002.
Judge Aspen's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Aspen, 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
File motions electronically at least three business days before the Thursday motion hearing and appear unless excused.
“Scheduling Motions -- The court hears motions on Thursdays at 10:30 AM. Unless the court has told a party it need not appear, counsel is expected to be present whether or not the motion is agreed. The Original is to be filed electronically no later than three business days preceding the day the motion is to be heard.”
Discovery
At the initial status conference, be ready to discuss the case, settlement, discovery, and future scheduling.
“The court will set cases for status within 45 days of the filing of the complaint. At the initial status conference the parties will:1) inform the court of the nature and scope of the case,2) identify settlement opportunities,3) set the initial discovery parameters, and4) schedule future conferences and, when necessary, motions. The court will set discovery and pretrial order deadlines at the time of the initial status.”
Conferences
Contact the courtroom deputy to schedule a settlement conference; both sides must agree and someone with settlement authority must attend.
“Parties are to contact the Judge's Courtroom Deputy to schedule a date for a settlement conference. Both sides must agree to the settlement conference. Principles or someone with settlement authority are to be present.”
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 Aspen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Foster v. Blagojevich, Aspen assessed the assistant warden position's inherent powers as set out in its official description, rather than the particular officeholder's day-to-day tasks, when deciding the First Amendment patronage claim.
“Our focus is on the ‘inherent powers’ of the office, not what any individual officeholder actually does.”
In Progressive Packaging v. Russell Stover Candies, Aspen stayed the contract suit and compelled arbitration. He found the arbitration clause broad enough to cover disputes about which terms formed part of the contract, and the plaintiff had not rebutted the presumption of arbitrability.
“In the instant case, the arbitration clause is broad, creating a presumption that all contract disputes are arbitrable. Progressive has not rebutted that presumption.”
In Feltman v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC, he rejected preclusion because the prior state-court ruling was not a final judgment on the merits.
“Absent a final judgment on the merits, neither the doctrine of collateral estoppel, nor res judicata apply.”
In Zhang v. UAB Ekomlita, he granted the registered owner's preliminary-injunction request in a dispute over nearly identical branded knives and rejected the defendant's fraudulent-procurement theory because it lacked specific, nonspeculative evidence.
“Absent specific, non-speculative evidence demonstrating that Zhang defrauded the USPTO, we cannot conclude that Zhang’s Amazon.com listing and the information contained therein is a fabrication or that Zhang fraudulently obtained his trademark registration.”
In Facebook v. Teachbook, trademark and related claims survived the pleading stage because the defendant’s genericness and similar factual arguments required proof beyond the complaint.
“Teachbook’s motion to dismiss the complaint is denied as to all counts.”
Procedural preferences
In Escarza v. Bank of New York Mellon, Aspen stayed the federal suit while a parallel Illinois foreclosure case addressed whether the statute of limitations barred foreclosure. He found that allowing both cases to proceed risked piecemeal litigation over the same state-law question.
“we stay the action sua sponte, pending a decision by the Cook County Circuit Court on the issue of whether the applicable statute of limitations bars the Foreclosure Action.”
In Progressive Packaging Corp. v. Russell Stover Candies, Inc., Aspen compelled arbitration and stayed the suit instead of dismissing it, applying the Seventh Circuit rule that proceedings should be stayed when a party invokes an arbitration clause.
“the proper course of action when a party seeks to invoke an arbitration clause is to stay the proceedings rather than to dismiss outright”
In Spivey v. EVIG LLC, he assessed the substance of a post-judgment motion rather than its caption.
“it is the substance of a motion that counts, not its label.”
Cautions
In George v. Amgen, Aspen dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff did not comply with an order requiring a treating-physician affidavit on deposition competency. She instead filed a late attorney affidavit with a brief physician note.
“Plaintiff did not comply with our Order. First, instead of filing an affidavit or declaration from her treating physician, Plaintiff filed an affidavit from her lawyer, James Macchitelli.”
In Foster v. Blagojevich, Aspen disregarded unsupported portions of the plaintiff’s Rule 56.1 statements during summary judgment and rejected an argument based on the officeholder’s own account of his duties rather than the position’s inherent powers.
“Foster’s brief in opposition to summary judgment is replete with unsupported conclusory arguments.”
In the June 2025 Spivey v. EVIG dismissal order, Aspen found that the plaintiff could not identify an advertisement he had seen and had not plausibly alleged that the product packaging made the quantity or efficacy promises he attributed to it.
“since plaintiff cannot identify an advertisement that he saw, the court cannot begin to evaluate whether a reasonable consumer could be misled by it.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed above, the motion to dismiss is denied.”
“we grant defendant Russell Stover’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, and deny its motion to dismiss.”
“we grant Russell Stover’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, and deny its motion to dismiss.”
“we grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment on both counts and dismiss the complaint.”
“we grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for want of prosecution with prejudice, and deny Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Substitute her son as party plaintiff.”
“deny Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Substitute her son as party plaintiff.”
In this debt-collection suit, the plaintiff alleged that a Cook County foreclosure action was time-barred under Illinois law. Rather than decide the fully briefed dismissal motions, Judge Aspen stayed the federal case under the Colorado River doctrine because the decisive limitations question was already pending in state court. The court wrote: 'we stay the action sua sponte, pending a decision by the Cook County Circuit Court on the issue of whether the applicable statute of limitations bars the Foreclosure Action.'
“For the foregoing reasons, UAB’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 32) and its motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 46) are denied, and Zhang’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 15) is granted.”
“We overrule Plaintiff’s objections, adopt Magistrate Judge Jantz’s Report and Recommendation, and deny Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction [3].”
“For the above reasons, the court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 44). The second amended complaint (Doc. 41) is dismissed with prejudice.”
“For the above reasons, the court construes plaintiff’s motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend this court’s previous opinion granting dismissal with prejudice and a Rule 15(a)(2) motion to amend his complaint (Doc. 68). That motion is granted.”
“Teachbook’s motion to dismiss the complaint is denied as to all counts.”
“We deny Federal’s motion for summary judgment and grant Travelers’ motion for summary judgment.”
“we grant Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 101) and motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 95).”
“We deny Davis’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 92).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 207.0 days (N = 9).
Even in senior status Aspen draws a full civil mix plus a criminal calendar: 'Schedule A' trademark/IP enforcement suits, contract (incl. insurance-coverage), consumer-protection class actions (e.g., FDCPA/consumer fraud), civil rights, immigration/labor-certification (APA) review, and personal injury. Criminal dockets excluded from the duration sample.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Aspen: 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 Aspen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Aspen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Aspen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace