Thomas Michael Durkin
How Judge Durkin rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Durkin
Thomas Michael Durkin is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Durkin received a commission on December 19, 2012. Judge Durkin assumed senior status on December 26, 2023.
Judge Durkin's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Durkin, 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
Trial
In civil jury trials, prepare a final pretrial memorandum jointly.
“In all civil jury trials before Judge Durkin, the parties shall jointly prepare a final pretrial memorandum.”
Trial
Provide two sets of exhibit binders with objected-to representative exhibits at least one week before the pretrial conference.
“At least one week before the pretrial conference, the parties must provide the court with two sets of exhibit binders containing copies of the objected-to representative exhibits.”
Other
For the hearing described in the procedure, file a joint witness report one week ahead.
“Before the Hearing: One week prior to the hearing, the parties shall file a Joint Report stating whether any party intends to present testimony from any witness other than the expert at issue.”
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 Durkin decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Nasrabadi v. Kameli, Durkin dismissed an attorney-malpractice claim as untimely under Illinois’s statute of repose. Nasrabadi had not shown fraudulent concealment that would toll the period.
“because Nasrabadi has failed to demonstrate fraudulent concealment, the time for the claim to be brought cannot be tolled and it must be dismissed as untimely.”
In DeEnterprises, Inc. v. Viking Packaging Technologies, Inc., he granted dismissal without prejudice under forum non conveniens, treating Viking's venue motion as a request to enforce the contract's Wisconsin forum clause after finding that public interests did not override it.
“For these reasons, Viking’s motion [11] is granted, and the case is dismissed without prejudice.”
Procedural preferences
In Boundaoui v. Constellation Brands, Inc., he transferred the case to Utah on his own motion under § 1404(a) because the alleged events, witnesses, and evidence were centered there, without deciding a pending motion to dismiss.
“the Court on its own motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and without expressing any opinion as to Constellation’s motion to dismiss, now transfers this case to the United States District Court for the District of Utah for further proceedings.”
In Nasrabadi v. Kameli, he granted summary judgment after the plaintiff failed to identify the legal duty supporting his fiduciary claim or connect the evidence to its elements.
“Without such argument, it is impossible for the Court to determine whether a reasonable jury could find that Kameli breached any duty to Nasrabadi.”
In one disability employment case, the court treated the reasonableness of a requested chance to sit during painful periods as a factual question unsuitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. It accepted the worker’s pleaded request and left factual testing for discovery.
“the question of whether the requested accommodation was reasonable is a fact-specific inquiry not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss.”
In a data-breach transfer dispute, the court kept the case in Illinois because witnesses and events were spread across several states and Kansas was not shown to be clearly more convenient. Kansas had a shorter median time to trial, but docket speed alone did not justify transfer.
“But docket speed alone does not warrant transfer.”
Cautions
In Till v. National General Accident and Health Insurance, Durkin held that a policy covering only a business’s sole working owner, with no employees, was outside ERISA. He treated whether the policy was an ERISA plan as a merits question in that case.
“Till does not allege that his business had any employees. And the insurance policy he bought was for himself alone. ... Accordingly, Till's policy is not covered by ERISA.”
In Holt v. MRS BPO, Durkin denied the plaintiff’s TCPA summary-judgment motion because the call evidence left factual questions a jury could resolve for the defendant.
“Holt is unable to demonstrate that a reasonable jury could not find in favor of MRS on any of the required elements. As such, summary judgment on her TCPA claim in Count IV is denied.”
In a discrimination and wage case, he expressly told both sides to moderate their briefing after describing its tone as excessive and mean-spirited.
“Lastly, the Court notes that some of the rhetoric in the briefs was over-the-top and mean-spirited. Both counsel should tone it down a bit.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Therefore, National General's motion to dismiss [16] is granted, and Till's claim is dismissed. ... Because Till's ERISA claim is dismissed as a matter of law ... the claim is dismissed with prejudice.”
“For these reasons, Viking's motion [11] is granted, and the case is dismissed without prejudice.”
“the Court on its own motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and without expressing any opinion as to Constellation's motion to dismiss, now transfers this case to the United States District Court for the District of Utah for further proceedings.”
“Holt is unable to demonstrate that a reasonable jury could not find in favor of MRS on any of the required elements. As such, summary judgment on her TCPA claim in Count IV is denied.”
“a reasonable jury could find that any alleged calls to MRS were made to collect a covered debt because that is what the company ‘primarily’ collects. As such, MRS is not entitled to summary judgment on the FDCPA claims in Counts I, II, and III.”
“Therefore, Kameli's motion for summary judgment [128] is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Yummy Makeup and Wings of Esa's motion to dismiss as to joinder and dismisses the case against those two defendants without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Dongyan's motion to dismiss and quash service and motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies PHH's motion to dismiss.”
“Therefore, Family First's motion to dismiss [11] is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the motion to dismiss.”
“Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [19] is denied. So is Defendants’”
“motion for a more definite statement [18]. The information Defendants seek in their”
“was not harmed by the defendants’ inaction, that the motion for summary judgment is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1127 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 464 days (N = 1).
- Judge Durkin has continued to receive civil assignments during senior service.
- The reviewed merits cases span employee benefits and insurance, commercial contracts and forum selection, civil rights and venue transfer, consumer-protection claims, attorney malpractice, and investor-visa disputes.
- His notable criminal matters include the 2016 sentencing of former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
- Case-type information was unavailable for some matters.
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 | 11 |
| 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 | 134 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 11 | 134 |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | 123 |
| Mar 2025 | 8 | 118 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 126 |
| Mar 2024 | 10 | 111 |
| Sep 2023 | 30 | 83 |
| Mar 2023 | 16 | 78 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 29 |
| Mar 2022 | 11 | 33 |
| Sep 2021 | 21 | 27 |
| Mar 2021 | 14 | 29 |
| Sep 2020 | 18 | 25 |
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 Durkin: 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 Durkin with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Durkin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Durkin's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace