Sharon Johnson Coleman
How Judge Coleman rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Coleman
Sharon Johnson Coleman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Coleman received a commission on July 13, 2010.
Judge Coleman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Coleman, 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 Re Schedule A Counterfeit Product Cases ↗
- FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER IN CIVIL TRIAL CASES ↗
Key rules
Discovery
File or schedule summary judgment motions within 60 days after discovery closes unless ordered otherwise.
“Unless otherwise ordered, motions for summary judgment must be filed or scheduled to be filed within 60 days of the close of discovery.”
Conferences
File a joint status report of no more than five pages at least three business days before the initial status hearing.
“The parties shall file a joint written status report, not to exceed five pages in length, at least three business days prior to the initial status hearing unless otherwise directed.”
Conferences
In reassigned cases, file a joint status report of no more than five pages within 14 business days unless ordered otherwise.
“Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, in all cases assigned to Judge Coleman's calendar from the calendar of another judge, the Court directs the parties to file a joint written status report, not to exceed five pages in length, within 14 business days of reassignment.”
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 Coleman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the Mutnick and Hall suits against Clearview AI, Johnson Coleman denied the defendants’ personal-jurisdiction motions. The record showed marketing and sales of the facial-recognition database to Illinois entities despite defendants’ affidavits denying Illinois contacts, and their corporate-officer shield argument was undeveloped.
“physical presence is not necessary for a defendant to have sufficient minimum contacts with a forum state.”
In St. Xavier University v. Mossuto, Johnson Coleman granted the prevailing defendant’s request for attorney fees after the university pursued a trademark claim without evidence of commercial use and abandoned a conversion claim. She distinguished that lack of support from advancing a novel legal theory in good faith.
“Lawyers advancing such arguments will not be subject to the possibility of attorney fees unless—as here—their arguments lack a reasonable legal or factual basis.”
Procedural preferences
In SoClean, Inc. v. RespLabs Medical USA, Johnson Coleman deemed SoClean’s Local Rule 56.1 facts admitted after RespLabs failed to respond to the statement of material facts.
“RespLabs failed to submit a response to SoClean’s statement of material facts as required by Local Rule 56.1(b)(3). Accordingly, the Court deems SoClean’s facts admitted.”
In SoClean, Inc. v. RespLabs Medical USA, Johnson Coleman found that the plaintiff had waived an underdeveloped argument in its copyright briefing. She noted that both sides had briefed the issue in less than a page and expected more from counsel.
“Because Plaintiff has failed to develop this argument, this Court finds that the argument has been waived. ... The Court expects more from members of the bar of this Court.”
Cautions
In Power Buying Dealers USA, Inc. v. JUUL Labs, Johnson Coleman found that Power Energy lacked antitrust standing. Its alleged injury was derivative of a more directly injured party’s position, even though Power Energy may itself have been harmed.
“Thus, weighing all the factors, the Court finds that Power Energy lacks standing. It may have been injured, but Antitrust law requires more.”
In Kelly v. Lightfoot, Johnson Coleman dismissed a former mayor’s official-capacity press-pass claim as moot. The plaintiff had not reapplied after the successor took office, leaving no basis to infer that the challenged practice would persist under the new administration.
“he cannot show any official action that reflects an institutional policy that can be presumed to persist under Mayor Johnson, Lightfoot’s successor. Thus, this matter is moot and has no jurisdictional basis.”
In one student loan suit, the court held that the federal agency’s immunity could not be avoided by framing a request to compel acceptance of a payment instrument as a declaration. It treated the requested relief as an injunction barred by the governing statute.
“the statute’s plain text plainly forbids the injunctive relief that Mr. Nkemnji seeks.”
In one telephone solicitation case, the court dismissed a complaint that did not connect each alleged call to the named insurer or identify the statutory provision for each claim, while allowing a corrected complaint. Plead the defendant’s role in each alleged violation.
“Plaintiff’s complaint does not allow the Court to reasonably infer that defendant is liable for each call.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, the Court denies defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) motions because the Court has personal jurisdiction over all of the defendants.”
“after carefully considering and weighing the public and private interest factors, the Court, in its discretion, denies defendants’ motion to transfer venue.”
“the Court grants defendants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss this lawsuit [11]. Civil case terminated.”
“For these reasons, this Court denies SoClean’s motion for summary judgment.”
“the Court grants in part and denies in part Mossuto’s Bill of Costs and grants Mossuto’s motion for attorney fees.”
“The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant Rocco Mossuto’s Bill of Costs [84] and grants his motion for attorney fees [89].”
“The Court finds that Power Energy lacks standing. Thus, the Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismisses both Cr@zy Us and Power Energy from the case.”
“Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice [33].”
“Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is denied [48].”
“Based on the foregoing, this Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner.”
“Thus, summary judgment is denied as to both parties on the breach of contract claim.”
“For these reasons, this Court denies the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment.”
“For these reasons, the Court denies Kraft Heinz's motion to dismiss.”
“For the reasons above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss [35]. The Court gives Plaintiff 30 days to cure the deficiencies stated herein.”
“For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [97]. The Court directs Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to comply with this Order within 30 days of the date of this Order.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants each Defendant’s motion to dismiss [11, 28] and dismisses Mr. Nkemnji’s complaint in its entirety and with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1062 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 377 days (N = 1).
- Active, large, varied caseload.
- A bare docket enumeration in mid-2026 surfaced almost entirely NEW 2026 filings: Schedule-A trademark counterfeiting suits (NBCUniversal, Deckers, J Brands), federal criminal (US v. Sharp, US v. Bazer), prisoner/civil-rights (Collazo v. Cook County Jail, Gee v. Cook County Public Defender), USCIS immigration mandamus (Sa.Yav. v. USCIS), and consumer/product-liability (Darr v. Gatorade, Wilson v. American Trench).
- The 8 published merits cases span BIPA/privacy (Clearview), antitrust (JUUL/Robinson-Patman), Lanham Act trademark (SoClean, Mossuto), 1983 civil rights (Ocampo, Kelly v. Lightfoot), Social Security (Slabon), and insurance-coverage (Redmond).
- Reassignment is common (Redmond came from Lefkow; Kelly came from Kendall), so a raw enumeration mixes inherited cases.
- Nature-of-suit is only partially/inconsistently reported in the case-level docket metadata (e.g. Redmond and SoClean both mislabeled 'Contract: Insurance').
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 | 15 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 19 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 15 | 19 |
| Sep 2025 | 21 | 18 |
| Mar 2025 | 9 | 16 |
| Sep 2024 | 17 | 26 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 25 |
| Sep 2023 | 8 | 25 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 32 |
| Sep 2022 | 7 | 26 |
| Mar 2022 | 6 | 20 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 25 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 23 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 15 |
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 Coleman: 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 Coleman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Coleman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Coleman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace