John Raymond Tunheim
How Judge Tunheim rules, drawn from 43 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tunheim
John R. Tunheim is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Tunheim received a commission on December 26, 1995. Judge Tunheim assumed senior status on December 1, 2023.
Judge Tunheim's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Tunheim, 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
Chambers does not require courtesy copies of documents filed on CM/ECF.
“No courtesy copies of any document filed on CM/ECF are required for chambers.”
Motions
Request a motion hearing after the motion has been filed and fully briefed.
“Judge Tunheim schedules motion hearings after the motion is filed and fully briefed by all the parties.”
Motions
Plan for 20 minutes of argument per side unless granted more time.
“Judge Tunheim’s motion hearings are 20 minutes per side unless permission has been given to exceed that amount of time.”
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 Tunheim decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Snyder v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Tunheim denied dismissal of an ERISA imprudence claim after finding that the complaint alleged eleven years of underperformance against six meaningful benchmarks. He treated the defendants' objections to the comparators as factual questions unsuitable for resolution on the motion to dismiss.
“To the extent that Defendants dispute the similarities between the Wells Fargo TDFs and the Morningstar Comparators, these are factual issues that the Court cannot resolve on a motion to dismiss. ... Snyder has identified not one, but six different meaningful benchmarks, all of which the Wells Fargo TDFs underperformed against over the course of eleven years.”
In Snyder v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., he denied an alternative summary-judgment motion as premature because discovery had not begun and the plaintiff submitted a Rule 56(d) declaration identifying needed evidence.
“As a general rule, summary judgment is proper only after the nonmovant has had adequate time for discovery. ... Snyder has properly submitted a declaration which details how further discovery will enable her to rebut the assertion that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Thus, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as premature.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 40] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 40] is DENIED. ... Discovery has not yet begun in this case. ... Thus, the Court will deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as premature.”
“Defendant Jodi Harpstead's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Michael Benson's Complaint against her (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED; ... Mr. Benson's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice”
“Mr. Benson's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss [Civil No. 19-1222, Docket No. 139] is GRANTED; ... The Second Amended Complaint [Civil No. 19-1222, Docket No. 126] is DISMISSED without prejudice; ... Plaintiffs shall have ninety [90] dates from the date of this order to file amended complaints.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 199] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony [Docket No. 203] is DENIED;”
“Defendant's Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony [Docket Nos. 291, 303] are DENIED.”
“The Third-Party Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket No. 80] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. GRANTED in part on Count I, the claims of defense and contribution are dismissed; b. GRANTED as to Count III; c. DENIED as to the remaining Counts.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment [Docket No. 9] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 12] is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 18] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 105] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Docket No. 748] is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration [Docket No. 15] is DENIED without prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration [Docket No. 6] is GRANTED, and all claims against OneMain Defendants and Triton will be referred to arbitration;”
“remand to state court is appropriate. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the jurisdiction of the Pipestone County, Minnesota District Court.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 358 days (N = 19).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 47 days (N = 11).
Twenty observed cases include six related 3M removal matters in the new filing cohort, along with insurance, contract, civil rights, and habeas matters. Nineteen had terminated and one remained pending when checked. The case mix reflects a bounded May 2020 filing sample plus six separately selected cases and should not be treated as 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 | 81 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 81 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 68 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 48 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 39 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 29 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 34 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 43 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 40 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 40 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 38 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 30 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 29 |
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 Tunheim: 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 Tunheim with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tunheim, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tunheim's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace