Joan Nancy Ericksen
How Judge Ericksen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Post-judgment reconsideration is very hard in front of Ericksen, and she does not let a litigant's choice of label control: she will construe a motion by its substance across Rule 60(b), Rule 59(e), and D. Minn. LR 7.2(j) and deny it under all of them. A Rule 60(b) motion 'is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits,' merely restating arguments already considered fails Rule 59(e), and reconsideration requires a showing of 'compelling circumstances.' Bring genuinely new grounds or do not move.
“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.”
Ericksen relies heavily on her magistrate judges: she adopts unobjected Reports & Recommendations as a matter of course, and when a party (including a pro se litigant) objects, she conducts a genuine de novo review under D. Minn. LR 72.2(b) / 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) before ruling. Litigants must file timely, specific objections to preserve review.
“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
On a Rule 12 motion in an FDCPA case Ericksen disposes of claims at a granular, sub-provision level rather than all-or-nothing: in Baker she dismissed the 1692f claim without prejudice, dismissed specific 1692d/1692e general-provision and 1692e(2) theories with prejudice as to one communication, and let the rest proceed. Plead and defend each statutory subsection separately; a partial dismissal is the likely outcome.
“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.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 5 |
Granted: 4Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 470 days (N = 1).
Ericksen-assigned dockets confirmed via search_dockets (assigned_judge='Joan N. Ericksen'). The 2013-2019 sample is dominated by short miscellaneous/forfeiture matters (US v. $90,000 / $44,630 / $42,430 in U.S. Currency; subpoena-enforcement miscellaneous actions for AstraZeneca, 3M, Wesco Insurance) plus FDCPA/Truth-in-Lending (Dokken v. Convergent, Baker v. Allstate), Social Security appeals (Slavicek), prisoner civil-rights and 2255 petitions (Allen v. Jussila, Campbell v. United States), and federal criminal cases (US v. Morgenstern, US v. Yang). The GovInfo orders read this session also touched pharmaceutical litigation (Lundbeck) and consumer/trademark matters (Miracle-Ear). Not exhaustive; she took senior status 2019-10-15 so post-2019 civil assignment volume drops.