Joan Nancy Ericksen
How Judge Ericksen rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ericksen
Joan N. Ericksen is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Ericksen received a commission on May 1, 2002. Judge Ericksen assumed senior status on October 15, 2019.
Judge Ericksen's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ericksen, 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
Contacting chambers
Use the chambers email address for staff; do not email the judge or law clerks directly.
“Communicate with chambers staff through the chambers email address: [email protected]. Do not email Judge Ericksen or law clerks directly.”
Motions
Do not request a dispositive motion hearing until ready to file.
“Do not call to schedule a hearing until ready to file motion.”
Motions
For dispositive motions, put the 21 day response and 14 day reply dates in the notice.
“the date for submission of the responsive brief will be 21 days from the filing of the motion. The reply brief will be due 14 days after that. These dates shall be included in the movant’s notice of motion.”
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 Ericksen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Soto v. Midwest Publishing-DN Inc., she denied a request for rehearing under Rule 60(b), Rule 59(e), and the local reconsideration rule because it repeated previously rejected arguments and showed no compelling circumstances.
“Rule 60(b) ‘is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits.’ ... merely restating what has already been considered is insufficient to warrant relief under Rule 59(e). ... The submission makes no showing of ‘compelling circumstances’ to justify reconsideration.”
In Slavicek v. Commissioner of Social Security, she reviewed an objected-to magistrate recommendation de novo, overruled the claimant's objection, and adopted the recommendation.
“Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation. ... The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Based on that review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation”
Cautions
In Baker v. Allstate Financial Services, Inc., she adopted a recommendation dismissing some debt-collection claims with different prejudice rulings for specific statutory subsections and communications, while allowing the remaining claims to proceed.
“Allstate's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART ... Baker's claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Baker's claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d's general provision, 1692e's general provision, and 1692e(2) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to April's message.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Allstate's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth below: ... Allstate's motion as to the remainder of Baker's claims is DENIED.”
“As a result, no matter how construed, Soto's ‘Request for Rehearing’ is denied. ... Plaintiff's Request for Rehearing According to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60 [ECF No. 9] is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment of Defendants Agrimson, Helmaniak, Jonk, Larson, Nelson, Reid, Simms, Tagawa, and Thielen [Docket No. 46] is GRANTED; the action against these defendants is dismissed with prejudice”
“Defendant Stephen Craane, M.D.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 55], is GRANTED; the action against this defendant is dismissed with prejudice”
“Defendants Dr. Michael Koeplin and Dr. Joshua Colton's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 61] is GRANTED; the action against these defendants is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 11] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 19] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Opinions of John S. Pierce Regarding Block-Billing [ECF No. 141] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Counterclaim [ECF No. 159] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 67] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 74] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony [ECF No. 82] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Daubert Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 36] is DENIED.”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 11] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED, and the case is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for reversal and award of benefits.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [Docket No. 18] is GRANTED, and the action is remanded to Hennepin County District Court; and”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Docket No. 12] is DENIED.”
“Wells Fargo Bank's motion for default judgment [Docket No. 30] is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 98 days (N = 15).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 108 days (N = 1).
- The bounded January 2014 sample includes employment and other civil-rights, contract, ERISA, foreclosure, antitrust, and health-care product matters.
- Fourteen selected cases had termination dates; a deliberately added 2022 multidistrict matter was pending.
- The pre-existing Social Security appeal is separate.
- Transfer and remand cases in this cohort can end quickly, so this mix is not an estimate of the judge's overall caseload.
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 | 4,451 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 4,451 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4,651 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4,779 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 28 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 25 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 25 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Ericksen: 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 Ericksen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ericksen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ericksen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace