Matthew F. Kennelly
How Judge Kennelly rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kennelly
Matthew F. Kennelly is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Kennelly received a commission on April 22, 1999. Judge Kennelly assumed senior status on October 7, 2021.
Judge Kennelly's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kennelly, 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.
- Case Procedures ↗
- Instructions for settlement conferences ↗
- Judge Kennelly’s Final Pretrial Order requirements ↗
Key rules
Sealing
For permitted sealed filings, file the full version under seal and a redacted version publicly.
“In any case in which Judge Kennelly permits filing under seal, an unredacted version of the entire filing, including all exhibits, must be filed under seal, and a redacted version that omits the sealed portions must be filed in the public record.”
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 Kennelly decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
He treats access to the courthouse functionally: a complaint counts as 'filed' for the statute of limitations the moment the clerk receives it, even without the filing fee or a granted IFP petition, so a fee/IFP gap does not time-bar an otherwise-timely suit.
“a complaint is considered to have been filed for statute of limitations purposes when the court clerk receives the complaint, not when it is formally filed in compliance with all applicable rules involving filing fees and the like.”
In Snyder v. U.S. Bank N.A., he granted summary judgment against direct Telephone Consumer Protection Act liability because the trustee banks did not initiate the challenged calls, while leaving the vicarious-liability theory for trial.
“direct liability could only attach where to the person or entity who actually initiated the unlawful phone calls.”
In a member case of the testosterone-replacement litigation, he denied part of the manufacturer's summary-judgment motion because the prescribing physician's qualified testimony left a factual dispute over what the physician knew about cardiovascular risks.
“it would not be unreasonable for a jury to find based on the totality of these statements that Dr. Kochendorfer could not say what—if anything—he knew about the risks of TRT at the time he prescribed AndroGel to Kenneth.”
Procedural preferences
In Terkel v. AT&T Inc., he denied a stay pending a transfer decision because the plaintiffs' claimed ongoing harm and request for injunctive relief outweighed the asserted benefits of waiting.
“the potential prejudice to the plaintiffs that would result from a stay outweighs the interests of judicial economy and the potential for hardship to the defendants and the government that would accompany denial of a stay.”
In Leonard v. Mesrobian, Meden & Nordstrom, Inc., he confirmed an arbitration award, denied the employee's request to vacate it, and dismissed the parallel suit.
“the Court grants Mr. Leonard's motion to amend his complaint [24] but also grants defendants' motions to dismiss [12] [14] and their motion to confirm the arbitration award.”
Cautions
Equitable tolling is granted 'sparingly': ongoing settlement negotiations do NOT toll a Title VII filing deadline, because nothing stops a plaintiff from filing suit while still negotiating. File within the 90 days regardless of settlement talks.
“The doctrine of equitable tolling ... is applied 'sparingly.' ... Batchelor's settlement negotiations do not warrant tolling the ninety-day limitation period.”
Quasi-judicial immunity is broad: a non-judge entity acting at the direction of a court (e.g. a court-appointed foreclosure-sale corporation) is absolutely immune from suit for those acts.
“both the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit have held that a party does not need to be a judge to be entitled to judicial (or quasi-judicial) immunity.”
In the testosterone-replacement member case, he treated an undeveloped argument against summary judgment as waived while allowing other claims supported by factual disputes to proceed.
“perfunctory, undeveloped arguments without discussion or citation to pertinent legal authority are waived”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated above, the Court denies defendant's motion for a stay (Case No. 06 C 2680, docket no. 18; Case No. 06 C 2837, docket no. 19).”
“Defendants' motion for leave to file supplemental authority is granted (Case No. 06 C 2680, docket no. 21; Case No. 06 C 2837, docket no. 27).”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Aramark's motion to dismiss [docket no. 42].”
“The Court grants defendant Schonecker's motion to dismiss [docket no. 31].”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Steven Lang's motions for summary judgment [docket nos. 185, 188], grants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s motion for summary judgment [docket no. 171], and grants TCF National Bank's motion for summary judgment [docket no. 180].”
“TCF National Bank's motion for discovery sanctions is denied as moot [docket no. 207].”
“the Court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment [docket no. 44] and directs the Clerk to enter summary judgment in favor of the defendant.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend [docket no. 131].”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court grants plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [docket no. 118].”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court grants defendant Judicial Service Corporation's motion to dismiss [docket no. 44].”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court dismisses the claims of plaintiff Charlie Bernaix for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
“The Court also denies plaintiffs' motion to remand.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court denies defendant's motion to dismiss [dkt. no. 17].”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss and directs the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
“the Court denies AbbVie's motion to exclude Dr. Ardehali's specific causation testimony, grants AbbVie's motion for summary judgment on Papandrea's claims for negligence, breach of implied warranty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and denies AbbVie's motion for summary judgment on Papandrea's claims for strict liability failure to warn, strict liability design defect, breach of express warranty, and loss of consortium [dkt. no. 20].”
“the Court denies the defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to vicarious liability and claim preclusion but grants the motion with respect to direct liability [dkt. no. 136].”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 440 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 15 days (N = 13).
- Even on senior status (since 2021-10-07) Kennelly carries a full docket with heavy MDL/mass-tort work.
- The 2026 slice is dominated by a wave of out-of-network healthcare-reimbursement suits against MultiPlan/Claritev (e.g. Rehability/Elite Chiropractic/Vega/U Matter Luxury Resort v. MultiPlan), plus ERISA (Central States Pension Fund).
- The 2015-2016 slice is dominated by Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) MDL 2545 member cases (Teague v. Endo, Landry v. Pfizer [365 product liability], Hall v. Abbott, Sellers v. Actavis) plus federal criminal matters.
- Nature-of-suit largely unreported in the case-level docket metadata for these slices.
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 | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 22 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 21 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 21 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 21 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 20 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 82 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 98 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 2,996 |
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 Kennelly: 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 Kennelly with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kennelly, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kennelly's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace