Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
How Judge Pallmeyer rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pallmeyer
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Pallmeyer received a commission on October 22, 1998. Judge Pallmeyer assumed senior status on August 1, 2024.
Judge Pallmeyer's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pallmeyer, 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
Do not notice motions for presentment and do not send courtesy copies unless asked.
“Until further notice, courtesy copies are no longer required and motions shall not be noticed for presentment.”
Motions
Limit motions in limine and responses to 15 pages per side unless given leave.
“Absent prior leave of court, motions in limine are limited to a total of 15 pages per side, and responses to motions in limine are likewise limited to a total of 15 pages per side.”
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 Pallmeyer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hernandez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Pallmeyer denied dismissal of a failure-to-promote claim because the plaintiff plausibly alleged discriminatory conduct deterred her from applying. She distinguished the employer’s authorities as summary judgment cases decided on developed records.
“Hudson and other summary judgment cases on which Defendant relies assume a fully-developed record; they do not control the resolution of a motion to dismiss.”
In Nelson v. Board of Trustees, Pallmeyer granted the pension fund summary judgment because the claimant’s administrative appeal was untimely and he had not shown that an appeal was certain to fail, as the futility exception required.
“In order for the futility exception to the exhaustion requirement to apply, Nelson would have to show that it is certain that his claim would have been denied on appeal.”
In Quad/Graphics v. Graphic Communications Conference, Pallmeyer upheld an arbitration award crediting the employer for a liability discharged in bankruptcy, reasoning that a reduced credit would effectively revive the discharged debt.
“Giving Plaintiff less than 100% credit for its Alden liability would do just that by effectively reanimating discharged debt, thereby significantly impairing bankruptcy law.”
In Waldron v. Dugan, Pallmeyer granted the defendant’s dismissal motion as to Count VI while allowing Counts I through V to proceed.
“For the reasons stated above, Dugan's motion to dismiss [34] is granted as to Count VI, and otherwise denied.”
Procedural preferences
In Maclin's summary judgment case, she treated the defendants' properly supported facts as admitted after the plaintiff agreed that each paragraph of their fact statement was true.
“For these reasons, the facts in Defendants' 56.1 statement, where supported by record evidence, are deemed admitted and constitute the record upon which summary judgment will be resolved.”
In Vertex Refining v. National Union, Pallmeyer barred an insurance expert from offering a legal conclusion about the plaintiff’s status as a lender’s loss payee. She allowed his narrower testimony about insurance industry practices and standards of care.
“Expert witnesses may not provide legal conclusions on ultimate legal issues.”
Cautions
In Maclin v. Sheriff of Cook County, Pallmeyer granted summary judgment to the county defendants on a municipal-liability claim. The plaintiff identified his own assault and alleged mistreatment but offered no theory or evidence of a broader practice or policy.
“Plaintiff has failed to offer so much as a theory, let alone any evidence, that would suggest his injuries were the result of a practice or pattern of activity by Defendants or that any such pattern existed.”
In the Inman infant-formula case, Pallmeyer denied a motion to strike jurisdictional allegations because the movant had not shown that those allegations would cause prejudice or confusion. The denial was without prejudice.
“Courts generally disfavor and infrequently grant motions to strike.”
In True Value Co. v. 4950 South Kipling Parkway, Pallmeyer denied part of the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion because the parties disputed what its employees had told the guarantor about the new program.
“The parties' dispute about what True Value employees told Erwin about the new RGA program precludes summary judgment in favor of True Value on the question of whether the Second RGA was supported by new consideration.”
In a prison worship case, the court refused summary judgment where officials gave no supported explanation for closing group worship while other prison activities stayed open. A stated security or staffing concern needs evidence connecting it to the specific restriction.
“the court is not required to do so blindly.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment (26) is granted.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [51] is granted.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motions to dismiss [24, 30] are denied.”
“Plaintiff's motion to enforce the award in part [21] is granted ... Both parties' motions are denied to the extent that they seek to vacate or modify, in part, the arbitration award.”
“as is Defendant's motion to enforce, in part, the arbitration award [28]. Both parties' motions are denied to the extent that they seek to vacate or modify, in part, the arbitration award.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's request for future economic benefits or pain and suffering damages is granted.”
“Defendants' motion to strike the jurisdictional allegations in the Amended Complaint is denied without prejudice.”
“Defendants' prior motion to dismiss [16, 17] is terminated as moot.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment [30] is granted.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [33] is denied, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.”
“Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss [23] is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [82] is granted with respect to Saitta's hostile work environment claims (Claims One and Two) and denied with respect to Saitta's retaliation claims (Claims Three and Four).”
“Defendant's second Motion to Dismiss [23] is granted in part, and Defendant's first motion [13] is stricken.”
“The motion to dismiss [17] is granted and Defendant Palmberg is dismissed from this case without prejudice.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint [29] is granted.”
“Assurance's motion to bar [110, 114] is granted in part and denied in part, in accordance with this opinion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 195 days (N = 6).
- As a senior judge (since August 2024) Pallmeyer still draws a full mixed docket.
- The most recent slice is dominated by newly filed pending civil cases, heavily from the Western Division in Rockford (e.g. Daniel v. General Motors, Kathrein v. Arcadia Consumer Healthcare, Flemming v. City of Rockford, Moore v. Trans Union, Insurance King v. Allstate), plus Chicago-Division product-liability matters tied to her infant-formula multidistrict litigation (O'Malley/Spangler v. Abbott/Mead Johnson).
- Nature of suit is mostly unreported in the case-level docket metadata for this slice.
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 | 141 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 141 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 78 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 38 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 47 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 26 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 29 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 29 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 26 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 26 |
| Mar 2021 | 8 | 22 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 10 |
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 Pallmeyer: 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 Pallmeyer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pallmeyer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pallmeyer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace