Robert William Gettleman
How Judge Gettleman rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gettleman
Robert William Gettleman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Gettleman received a commission on October 11, 1994. Judge Gettleman assumed senior status on May 5, 2009.
Judge Gettleman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gettleman, 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
Contacting chambers
Email proposed orders to the court’s proposed-order address.
“Proposed orders must be emailed to [email protected].”
Motions
Deliver a courtesy copy of briefs with exhibits to Room 1704.
“A courtesy copy of any brief filed with exhibits must be dropped off at Room 1704.”
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 Gettleman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Bleecker v. Krantz, Gettleman denied a trustee’s motion to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction. He held that a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim seeking relief for the trustee’s alleged conduct did not require the court to probate a will or administer an estate.
“if a claim does not involve the probate of a will or the administration of a probate estate, a federal court may adjudicate the matter provided there is a basis for federal jurisdiction”
He allows pleading in the alternative under Rule 8: a quantum-meruit / unjust-enrichment count survives a motion to dismiss even where the plaintiff also alleges an express (here unenforceable) contract. Plead the restitution theory alongside the contract claim rather than electing.
“Pursuant to Fed. Civ. P. 8(e)(2), a plaintiff may plead contradictory claims in the alternative.”
In Cook's felon-in-possession prosecution, he dismissed the indictment after finding that the government's capital-punishment and estate-forfeiture analogues did not justify the permanent firearm ban under Bruen.
“the government has not met its burden under Bruen to prove this nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation with historical evidence of laws that authorized capital punishment and estate forfeiture for felonies.”
Procedural preferences
In Carrington v. Israel Emergency Alliance, Gettleman found venue improper in Illinois and transferred the defamation suit to the Central District of California under § 1406(a), where both parties agreed venue was proper.
“the court grants defendant’s motion [Doc. 4] in part and transfers this action to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a).”
In Rose Importing v. Seesaw, Gettleman disregarded affidavits submitted with a motion to dismiss and resolved the pleading challenge without converting it to summary judgment. He dismissed the oral-contract count but allowed the quantum-meruit count to proceed.
“The submission of facts outside the allegations of the complaint is improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and the court has elected to ignore the affidavits rather than convert the motion to one for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.”
In U.S. Bank v. Hauger, Gettleman deemed the bank’s Local Rule 56.1 facts admitted after the defendants did not respond to them. He then granted the bank summary judgment in the foreclosure action.
“Accordingly, the court deems all of plaintiff’s 56.1 statements admitted.”
In the TransUnion data breach litigation, he severed claims against Salesforce because the parties’ claims would turn on different theories and proof, while leaving venue transfer for another order.
“Because the court foresees that the claims against Salesforce and TransUnion will turn on largely separate legal theories and proof, the court finds that it is appropriate to sever the claims against Salesforce.”
Cautions
Illinois statute of frauds is enforced on a five-year-plus oral contract: the partial-performance exception is equitable and is NOT available to a plaintiff who seeks only money damages (as opposed to specific performance). If you must rely on an oral multi-year agreement, plead for equitable relief or a restitution theory, not just damages.
“the partial performance exception is an equitable remedy and therefore is unavailable to [plaintiff], who seeks only money damages.”
In Bills v. BNC Mortgage, Gettleman dismissed a TILA rescission claim because the non-titled spouse had no ownership interest in the dwelling and therefore was not a consumer entitled to rescission notice under Regulation Z.
“Without an ownership interest, she is not a ‘consumer’ under Regulation Z and was not entitled to notice under TILA.”
In Janus v. AFSCME on remand, Gettleman held that the union had a good-faith defense to retrospective § 1983 damages for fair-share fees it collected under then-valid law. He granted the union summary judgment because it could not reasonably have anticipated the change in controlling law.
“Defendant AFSCME followed the law and could not reasonably anticipate that the law would change. Consequently, the court concludes that the good faith defense applies, and plaintiff is not entitled to any damages.”
In Ortiz v. United States, Gettleman dismissed a medical-negligence count because the plaintiff’s § 2-622 report did not explain the deficient care or applicable standard. He held that the Illinois report requirement applied in federal court and allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint with a compliant report.
“this court concludes that § 622 is a substantive requirement that applies in federal court”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed above, defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.”
“For the reasons discussed above, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.”
“For the reasons stated herein, defendant's motion to dismiss Count I is granted. The defendant’s motion to dismiss Count II is denied.”
“defendant AFSCME’s motion [Doc. 175] is granted and plaintiff’s motion [Doc. 177] is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 177] is denied.”
“the court grants defendant’s motion [Doc. 4] in part and transfers this action to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a).”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.”
“Thus, plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) and his request is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint is granted. Counts IV and V of the complaint are dismissed with prejudice for failure to state federal claims; the remaining counts are dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice. ... plaintiff is given leave to file an amended complaint, with an adequate § 622 report, on or before March 17, 2014.”
“For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 61) is granted. Civil case terminated.”
“For the reasons stated above, the court grants plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 34) and enters judgment in favor of plaintiff U.S. Bank N.A. and against defendants Kenneth E. Hauger and Marie E. Hauger”
“and grants plaintiff’s motion for appointment of a special commissioner (Doc. 37).”
“Accordingly, defendant’s motion to reconsider is denied.”
“The plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel [#43] is denied.”
“However, the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time [#45] is granted.”
“Finally, the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is denied. All of the defendants have responded to the complaint by way of a motion to dismiss.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 113.5 days (N = 16).
- The reviewed cases come from 2021 and 2022 filing cohorts together with current matters.
- As a senior judge he continues to handle 'Schedule A' intellectual-property and counterfeiting suits, consumer-credit claims, ERISA and insurance disputes, employment and civil-rights cases, and trademark and copyright matters.
- Criminal cases are excluded from the duration sample, and current 2026 civil filings remain pending.
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 | 4 |
| 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 | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 3 | 15 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 13 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 16 |
| Mar 2023 | 10 | 26 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 23 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 17 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 15 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 12 |
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 Gettleman: 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 Gettleman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gettleman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gettleman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace