Nancy Ellen Brasel
How Judge Brasel rules, drawn from 42 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Brasel
Nancy Ellen Brasel is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Brasel received a commission on September 13, 2018.
Judge Brasel's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Brasel, 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
Courtesy copies of motion filings are not required.
“Judge Brasel no longer requires courtesy copies of motion filings.”
Motions
Do not seek early summary judgment without special permission.
“Parties may not file a motion for summary judgment prior to the discovery deadline unless they have received special permission from the Court.”
Trial
File no more than five motions in limine without prior permission in extraordinary circumstances.
“No party may submit more than five motions in limine except in extraordinary circumstances and with the prior permission of the Court.”
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 Brasel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc. v. Focal Point, L.L.C., she denied dismissal for failure to mediate because the contract said the parties would initiate a 'voluntary' mediation and did not unambiguously make mediation a condition precedent to suit.
“A contractual condition precedent must be expressly and unambiguously stated. ... the mediation provision uses mandatory and non-mandatory language, stating that the parties 'shall initiate a voluntary' mediation. The provision therefore does not unambiguously require the executive meeting and mediation before a party sues.”
In R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc. v. Focal Point, L.L.C., Brasel denied Focal Point's diversity-jurisdiction challenge because the complaint alleged each LLC member's citizenship and Focal Point offered no evidence that the claim fell below $75,000.
“Rule 8 requires a 'short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.' ... It does not require parties to plead a specific address. ... Focal Point offers no evidence to establish to a legal certainty that the claim is for less than $75,000.”
In the same case, Brasel considered the sales agreement embraced by the pleadings but declined to consider other documents surrounding termination because doing so would convert the dismissal motion to one for summary judgment.
“The other documents are not fairly embraced by the pleadings and consideration of them would convert this motion to one for summary judgment. ... The Court declines to do so.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Focal Point, L.L.C.'s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED ; and ... This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] is DENIED;”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 16] is GRANTED; and ... This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is ACCEPTED; ... Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED; and ... The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“the Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED AS MOOT, the TRO motion [ECF No. 6] is DENIED, the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the TRO motion [ECF No. 6] is DENIED”
“the motion to dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant Linda Pantzki's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED; and ... This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Gutierrez's Objection (ECF No. 45) is OVERRULED; ... The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 44) is ACCEPTED; ... The Renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED; ... The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; ... The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and ... No certificate of appealability be issued.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 27] is GRANTED;”
“Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Experts Testimony [ECF No. 22] is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and”
“Defendants' Motion to Strike Expert Declaration [ECF No. 47] is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”
“Polaris's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (ECF No. 371) is DENIED;”
“Polaris's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 356) is DENIED; and”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 332) is DENIED.”
“Progressive Preferred Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Declaratory Judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 267.5 days (N = 14).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 298.0 days (N = 4).
Sixteen reviewed civil cases include consumer credit, immigration habeas, insurance, banking, and other disputes. Fourteen had terminated and two remained pending when checked. Thirteen were the complete January 2019 civil filing cohort assigned to this judge; three other cases were selected separately. This mix describes the observed files and does not estimate the full 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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Brasel: 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 Brasel with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Brasel, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Brasel's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace