Patrick Joseph Schiltz
How Judge Schiltz rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Schiltz
Patrick Joseph Schiltz is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Schiltz received a commission on April 28, 2006. Judge Schiltz assumed senior status on July 1, 2026.
Judge Schiltz's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Schiltz, 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 one courtesy copy of memoranda and supporting documents to chambers.
“One courtesy copy of memoranda and supporting documents should be delivered to the chambers of Judge Schiltz.”
Motions
The dispositive motion deadline is the hearing deadline; contact chambers three to four months ahead.
“The dispositive-motion deadline in cases assigned to Judge Schiltz is always a ‘heard by’ date. Parties should contact chambers three to four months in advance of the dispositive-motion deadline”
Motions
Do not move to strike material supporting a motion; strike motions are allowed only for pleadings under Rule 12(f).
“Judge Schiltz does not permit ‘motions to strike’ unless they are directed at a pleading pursuant to Rule 12(f).”
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 Schiltz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Anderson & Koch Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, he partly dismissed the dealer's challenge to a proposed new dealership, holding that general unfair-practices provisions could not bypass the Minnesota statute's specific procedure and distance limit for challenging new dealerships.
“Anderson & Koch cannot use § 80E.13(k) or (p) to evade the explicit procedures provided by the Minnesota Legislature for challenging a new dealership. To hold otherwise would create bizarre consequences. ... That would make no sense, and it would do violence to the scheme prescribed by the Minnesota Legislature...”
In REA Investments, LLC v. Novel Energy Solutions, LLC, Schiltz denied both parties' summary-judgment motions on REA's contract claim because the contracts were ambiguous, the extrinsic evidence was unhelpful, and the record was inadequate.
“In short, the contracts are ambiguous, the extrinsic evidence is unhelpful, and the record is inadequate. The Court therefore denies both parties' motions for summary judgment on REA's breach-of-contract claim against Novel.”
In REA Investments, LLC v. Novel Energy Solutions, LLC, he granted summary judgment against Novel's financing-introductions claim because it offered no evidence that an alleged breach caused harm or a basis to quantify damages.
“Even if Novel is correct, however, the record contains no evidence of any harm that Novel suffered as a result. ... Novel proffers no expert testimony or other evidence that would allow a jury to find (much less to quantify) damages. ... the Court grants REA summary judgment on the issue of financing introductions.”
In the REA Investments post-trial fee dispute, Schiltz assessed who prevailed by examining the parties’ actual recoveries. After each side sought millions but recovered only nominal damages, he denied a request to count individual claim victories as points toward prevailing-party status.
“To declare one or the other to be the ‘prevailing’ party would stretch the term beyond recognition.”
Procedural preferences
In Ballast Advisors, LLC v. Peterson, he adopted a magistrate judge's Rule 37(e)(1) sanctions recommendation, ordered reimbursement of fees and costs tied to motions to compel and sanction, and deferred the request for stronger sanctions until trial.
“Plaintiff's motion for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1) [ECF No. 148] is GRANTED IN PART as follows”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Counts I, II, and III of the complaint [ECF No. 1‐1] to the extent that those counts seek relief against the proposed new Ford dealership in Forest Lake, Minnesota, and those counts are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as they seek declaratory, injunctive, or monetary relief related to the establishment of the new dealership. 2. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“REA’s motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 116] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:”
“Novel’s motion for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 131]7 is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's ‘Motion to/for Default Judgment’ (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is granted. ... The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.”
“defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 32] is GRANTED and the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Seasons’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 15] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Count III is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE insofar as it asserts a claim to relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4). b. Count IV is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 84] is GRANTED. ... Plaintiff’s amended complaint [ECF No. 5] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND ON THE MERITS.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [#14] is GRANTED; ... The case is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation;”
“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [#22] is DENIED;”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiffs' motion to reconsider [ECF No. 250] is DENIED.”
“A trial never occurred in this case, however, so the Court construes her motion as a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion for a new trial [ECF No. 50] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 16] is GRANTED. 2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, [Docket No. 8], is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's claims against the named individual Defendants in their individual capacities are DISMISSED without prejudice. ... 4. Plaintiff's claims for monetary and punitive damages against all Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 214 days (N = 16).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 210.5 days (N = 6).
- The bounded January 2023 sample includes civil-rights, employee-benefit, insurance, commercial, and habeas matters.
- Twelve selected files have termination dates and two lack them.
- Five earlier files broaden the observed set to 19, including contract and consumer cases.
- Three of those 19 lack a recorded termination date; a missing date does not prove a case is pending.
- The sampled case mix does not represent 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| 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 Schiltz: 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 Schiltz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schiltz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Schiltz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace