Susan E. Cox

How Judge Cox rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Cox no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.

Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Position
Magistrate judge
Status
Left this court 2023
Served
2007–2023
Commissioned
August 27, 2007
Education
Allegheny College, B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, 1980; Boston University School of Law, J.D., 1983
Signed orders read
8

About Judge Cox

Susan E. Cox served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Illinois from August 2007 until her retirement in August 2023. She graduated from Allegheny College in 1980 and Boston University Law School in 1983.

How Judge Cox decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In Turkyilmaz v. Colvin, she remanded the denial of disability benefits because the ALJ failed to evaluate the treating physician's opinion using the required factors.

“We remand to re-examine the treating physician’s opinion using the factors set forth in 20 U.S.C. § 404.1527.”

Procedural preferences

In Peerless Industries v. Crimson AV, she partly granted a renewed discovery sanctions motion after defendants failed to comply with production orders. She ordered complete production and awarded costs for three motions, while denying the requested relief concerning a witness, drawings, and a daily fine.

“The Court hereby orders defendants to produce full and complete discovery as outlined above and awards plaintiff costs for the three motions.”

Cautions

In Day v. River Forest School District, she recommended a $250 Rule 11 sanction after finding that the pro se plaintiff continued litigating despite evidence undermining his claim.

“recommends a modest monetary sanction of $250.00 be imposed due to Mr. Day’s egregious conduct in this case.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Adam C. v. Saul (Commissioner of Social Security)
1:19-cv-00023 · 2019-11-19
Social security review (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's Brief in Support of his Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [dkt. 15], which the Court construes as a motion for summary judgment, is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt. 19] is DENIED. The Administrative Law Judge's decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Davila v. Colvin (Acting Commissioner of Social Security)
1:14-cv-02743 · 2015-06-29
Social security review (plaintiff) Granted

“We grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 15] and deny the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 22]. The Administrative Law Judge's decision is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Turkyilmaz v. Colvin (Acting Commissioner of Social Security)
1:13-cv-04324 · 2014-07-11
Social security review (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted [dkt. 12]. We remand to re-examine the treating physician's opinion using the factors set forth in 20 U.S.C. 404.1527. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied [dkt. 19].”

Dyson, Inc. and Dyson Technology Ltd. v. SharkNinja Operating LLC and SharkNinja Sales Co.
1:14-cv-00779 · 2016-04-22
Motions to compel (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons more fully discussed below, the Motion to Compel [173] filed by Defendants SharkNinja Operating LLC and SharkNinja Sales Company (collectively, ‘Defendants’) is granted in part, and denied in part.”

The Manitowoc Company, Inc. v. Kachmer, Reuther, and Brisch
1:14-cv-09271 · 2016-05-10
Motions to compel (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motion to compel is granted.”

Serrano v. Taylor, D.D.S.
1:13-cv-03408 · 2014-09-25
Motion to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons provided, plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, construed as a motion [29], is denied.”

Day v. River Forest School District 90 and Hagerman
1:10-cv-04426 · 2014-04-09
Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that the district judge grant the motion and sanction Mr. Day in the amount of $250.00 payable to the defendants.”

Peerless Industries, Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC and Gleyzer
1:11-cv-01768 · 2012-06-27
Motion for sanctions (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff's motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b) [dkt. 94].”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 199 days (N = 5).

Judge Cox's reviewed docket combines duty-magistrate matters involving parcel searches and forfeitures with consent civil cases, including Social Security appeals, commercial freight, product-liability, and premises-liability disputes. Her broader work also included referred discovery and pretrial motions, sanctions issues, and reports and recommendations from 2007 through 2023.

Pending matters in the official report

Judge Cox was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2023.

Motions pending more than six months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years0
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Sep 202300
Mar 202302
Sep 202201
Mar 202201
Sep 202101
Mar 202101
Sep 202000

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.

A historical record

Judge Cox no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.