Eric Christian Tostrud
How Judge Tostrud rules, drawn from 43 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tostrud
Eric Christian Tostrud is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Tostrud received a commission on September 10, 2018.
Judge Tostrud's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Tostrud, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Deliver two courtesy copies of memoranda and one of supporting documents to the St. Paul clerk's office by the next business day.
“Two courtesy copies of memoranda and one courtesy copy of supporting documents should be mailed or delivered to the clerk’s office in St. Paul the next business day after the documents are filed”
Motions
Schedule motions through the courtroom deputy by email.
“Motions must be scheduled through the Courtroom Deputy by emailing [email protected].”
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 9, 2026).
- Amended Administrative Order: Procedures for Storage and Management of Sealed Documents ↗
- General Order No. 1: Filing Sealed Documents with Highly Sensitive Information ↗
- General Order No. 2: Removing Sealed Documents with Highly Sensitive Information from CM/ECF ↗
- Administrative Order: Encryption of Electronic Materials and Cloud Storage Links ↗
How Judge Tostrud decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Olson v. PowerBlock, Tostrud dismissed a federal antitrust claim because the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that the defendant's earlier state-court suit was objectively baseless under Noerr-Pennington.
“Olson has failed to allege facts in his Amended Complaint plausibly showing that the state-court case is objectively baseless.”
In Petersen v. Allstate Mutual Insurance Company, he denied Allstate's early summary-judgment motion because the existing record left factual questions about whether it breached a duty of good faith to the insured's estate.
“At least on this record, the better answer is that Allstate owed the estate a duty of good faith, and fact questions preclude a dispositive ruling that Allstate did not breach that duty.”
In Oxygenator Water Technologies v. Tennant, Tostrud declined to strike a request for a permanent injunction at the pleading stage while the underlying patent claims remained in the case.
“courts on balance seem reticent to dismiss requests for injunctive relief at the pleading stage”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant Tennant Company's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12] is DENIED.”
“PowerBlock's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 29] is GRANTED IN PART. Olson's claim for sham litigation monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (Count I) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Olson's claim for tortious interference with business advantage (Count II) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“PowerBlock's alternative motion to stay is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Olson's motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 35] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“PowerBlock's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 14] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Defendant Allstate Indemnity Company's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 11] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 35] is GRANTED. ... The Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 31] is GRANTED; ... Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Government's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED.”
“The MEnD Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 98] is GRANTED.”
“The Sherburne County Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 107] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 27] is DENIED;”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 36] is GRANTED;”
“Defendant Timothy Kerr's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 151] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant Park Christian School, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 157] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiff Jimmy Morton's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 173] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Joint Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Arndt [ECF No. 127] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as explained in Part III.B., above.”
“Petitioner Nicholas L.L.'s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.”
“Defendant Morrison Sund PLLC's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 354 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 81 days (N = 1).
- The 30-docket sample is weighted toward recent matters and is not exhaustive.
- May and June 2026 filings are dominated by alien-detainee habeas petitions, including Tovar-Cardozo v. Blanche, Wattara v. Brott, Flores Monrroy v. Blanche, Picazo Jimenez v. Blanche, Ortiz Diaz v. Stasko, and Rodriguez-Sigala v. Warden FCI Sandstone.
- The sample also includes civil-rights, personal-property, product-liability, insurance, and criminal matters.
- Older terminated civil cases represented in the outcome sample include Olson v. PowerBlock, an antitrust case, and Petersen v. Allstate, an insurance case.
- The sample does not establish the full nature-of-suit mix or comprehensive dispositive-motion timing.
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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
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 United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, not for Judge Tostrud: 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 | 2,681 | 8.2 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,499 | 5.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 645 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 525 | 13.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 39.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,681 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,636 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,579 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,701 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,737 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 3,259 | 14.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 8,151 | 21.6 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 Tostrud with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tostrud, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tostrud's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace