Ronald A. Guzmán
How Judge Guzmán rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Guzmán
Ronald A. Guzman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Guzman received a commission on November 15, 1999. Judge Guzman assumed senior status on November 16, 2014.
Judge Guzmán's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Guzmán, 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 ↗
- STANDING ORDER OF JUDGE RONALD A. GUZMAN SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ↗
- Form of Proposed Temporary Restraining Order ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
When restitution is sought, the government must provide the victim spreadsheet 60 days before sentencing.
“Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(1), if restitution is being sought in the case, 60 days prior to the sentencing date, the Government shall provide the Probation Office and the courtroom deputy an electronic standardized spreadsheet (available on the Court’s website) with a list of victims and their full current contact information.”
Contacting chambers
Do not email proposed orders unless the court directs you to.
“DO NOT SUBMIT Proposed Orders to Judge Guzman's email address unless the court has specifically directed the parties to do so, usually in open court or by arrangement with the Courtroom Deputy.”
Trial
Order a daily or hourly transcript at least five business days before a multiday trial or hearing.
“Persons requesting a daily or hourly transcript of a trial or other evidentiary hearing that may reasonably be expected to last more than one day should place the order with the Court Reporter at least five business days prior to the first day of such proceedings.”
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 Guzmán decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Roldan v. Coca Cola Refreshments, Guzman denied a claim-preclusion dismissal request on the record before him. The employer relied on an unreviewed administrative decision and did not explain the effect of a later state appellate dismissal for want of prosecution; he declined to supply that missing argument.
“the Court has no basis on which to conclude that Plaintiff’s IDHR complaint and subsequent proceedings preclude her claims here.”
In Plum Markets v. Compass Group, Guzman dismissed the trade-dress claim without prejudice because the complaint used conclusory labels rather than describing the restaurant’s distinctive, nonfunctional features. He allowed the contract and unjust-enrichment claims to proceed.
“Simply using conclusory words like ‘unique’ and ‘recognizable’ does not make it so.”
In Lewis v. Donahoe, Guzman dismissed a postal worker’s retaliation suit because a written warning was not a materially adverse action, the termination issue had already been litigated, and another retaliation theory was unexhausted.
“A written warning, however, does not constitute an adverse action.”
Procedural preferences
In Roldan's employment-discrimination case, he granted the pro se plaintiff leave to amend and treated her separately filed factual allegations and form complaint as the second amended complaint.
“the Court grants leave for Plaintiff to file the proposed second amended complaint in full.”
Cautions
In Perkins's prisoner civil-rights case, he granted summary judgment after finding that the plaintiff had neither appealed his disciplinary conviction nor filed a grievance about the disciplinary process.
“Because the record establishes that plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies, the Court cannot consider the merits of his due process claims.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss [40] is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted.”
“Defendant’s motion to stay discovery [52] is denied.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. Civil case terminated.”
“Compass Group USA, Inc.’s motion to dismiss [9] is granted in part. The trade dress claim is dismissed without prejudice to repleading. ... The rest of the motion to dismiss is denied.”
“defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted [45] and this case is terminated.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count II [27] is granted for the reasons stated above.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss [6] is granted without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint within 14 days”
“For these reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“plaintiff’s motion to exclude any testimony of defense genetics expert Ian Krantz, M.D. [83], and plaintiff’s motion to bar opinions of defendants’ expert witness Mark S. Scher, M.D. [94] are denied.”
“the Court grants Plaintiff’s renewed motion for class certification [146].”
“Plaintiff’s amended motion to remand [13] is granted. The Clerk is directed to remand this case to the Circuit Court of Cook County forthwith.”
“the Court denies the motion to enforce the forum-selection clause.”
“Ernesto’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for failure to state a claim is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 42.5 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 50.5 days (N = 2).
- The reviewed 2023 filing cohort, drawn during Judge Guzmán's senior service, includes immigration-delay suits, personal-injury and pharmaceutical-product cases, consumer-debt disputes, employee-benefit collection actions, and commercial and contract matters.
- The observed durations are unusually short and include stipulated or administrative terminations and possible reassignments rather than only contested merits decisions.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 8 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 39 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 37 | 4 |
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 Guzmán: 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 Guzmán with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Guzmán, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Guzmán's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace