W. Thomas Rosemond Jr.

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois magistrate Retired 2001 · served 1985–2001 19 signed orders read

Judge Rosemond no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

How Judge Rosemond decides

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

What persuades

For permissive joinder, he required a real transactional and factual connection rather than merely the same defendant and legal theory.

“Alleging the same general theories of law against a defendant is not sufficient to satisfy the ‘common question of law or fact’ requirement of Rule 20.”

On transfer, he looked for a concrete connection to the proposed forum and evidence that the existing venue imposed actual hardship.

“Most importantly, Direct Transit offers no evidence that defending in this district will cause it any hardship whatsoever.”

Procedural preferences

He favored advance notice of recipients under a protective order so parties could object and later trace misuse of confidential material.

“The notice requirement appears reasonable in all respects, and operates against both parties equally.”

He resisted late amendments that would restart extensive discovery and delay a case already near trial.

“Permitting NSK’s counterclaims would launch the parties upon another waive of discovery of unknown duration and destination.”

Cautions

He imposed sanctions where a basic prefiling inquiry would have exposed a deficient jurisdictional allegation and avoided the opposing party's federal-court expense.

“Had plaintiffs counsel abided by his Rule 11 obligations, none of the defendant’s federal court expenses would have been incurred.”

Signed rulings

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

THK America, Inc. v. Nippon Seiko K.K.
· 1991-08-20
Motion for protective order (defendants) Granted in part

“This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion For A Protective Order. The motion is granted in part and denied in part.”

THK America, Inc. v. Nippon Seiko K.K.
· 1991-08-20
Motion to bifurcate and stay discovery (defendants) Denied

“Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion For Separation Of Issues And Stay Of Discovery. The motion is denied.”

United States v. Yearwood
· 1992-10-16
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Rosemond denied Yearwood’s motion to suppress evidence and statements.”

THK America, Inc. v. NSK Ltd.
· 1994-03-22
Motion for leave to amend join and add counterclaims (defendants) Denied

“‘Defendants’ Motion For Leave To File Amended Answers; To Join THE Co., Ltd. As a Party Plaintiff; And To Add Counterclaims’ is denied.”

Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago v. Group Administrators, Ltd.
· 1994-02-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied, and plaintiffs motion to remand is granted, for the reasons set forth below.”

Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted
THK America, Inc. v. NSK Ltd.
· 1994-04-11
Motion for attorneys fees and costs (plaintiff) Granted

“The ‘Application Of Plaintiff For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs As Authorized By Court Orders ’ is approved in every respect.”

Seko Air Freight, Inc. v. Direct Transit, Inc.
· 1994-06-29
Motion to transfer venue (defendant) Denied

“Defendant Direct Transit’s motion to transfer venue is denied.”

THK America, Inc. v. NSK Co.
· 1994-10-06
Motion to enforce stipulation or compel discovery (plaintiff) Granted

“THK’s ‘Motion To Enforce A Stipulation Or, Alternatively, To Obtain Selected Damages-Related Discovery ’ is granted.”

Motion to direct settlement discussions (plaintiff) Granted

“THK’s ‘Motion To Direct Defendants To Proceed With Settlement Discussion ’ is granted in that we concur with THK that NSK has vexatiously interposed bogus hurdles to a settlement conference between the parties.”

International Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of Chicago Heights
· 1996-12-10
Motion for preliminary injunction or tro (plaintiff) Denied

“After a testimonial hearing Magistrate Judge W. Thomas Rosemond, Jr. recommended that injunctive relief be denied.”

Hightower v. Harris
· 1997-05-09
Summary judgment (Federal Security, Inc.) Granted

“‘Federal Security, Inc.’s Motion For Summary Judgment’ is hereby granted.”

Summary judgment (Chicago Housing Authority) Denied

“The ‘Chicago Housing Authority’s Cross Motion For Summary Judgment’ is hereby denied.”

Randleel v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.
· 1998-08-13
Motion to sever (defendant) Granted

“Before the Court is ‘Defendant’s Motion To Sever Claims ’. The motion is granted.”

Roberts v. Zemen
· 2000-01-24
Motion for sanctions (defendant) Granted

“Before the Court is ‘Defendant’s Amended Petition For Sanctions Pursuant To Federal Rule 11.’ The motion is granted.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The ten oldest sampled assigned matters were all terminated and spanned civil-rights, contract, product-liability, statutory, benefits, fraud, and disability cases. Because this was an oldest-case sample and none retained an entry timeline, it does not represent Rosemond's full caseload or motion practice.

A historical record

Judge Rosemond no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.