Patricia Anne Gaughan
How Judge Gaughan rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gaughan
Patricia Anne Gaughan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Gaughan received a commission on December 26, 1995. Judge Gaughan assumed senior status on October 1, 2023.
Judge Gaughan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gaughan, 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.
- Civil Trial Order ↗
- Criminal Pretrial Order ↗
- Notice of Case Management Conference ↗
- Notice of Case Management Conference - Patent Case ↗
- Report of Parties' Planning Meeting ↗
- Report of Parties' Planning Meeting - Patent Case ↗
Key rules
Conferences
The parties must file their planning report at least three workdays before the case management conference.
“A Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting (see attached form), shall be filed with the Court at least three work days prior to the CMC.”
Trial
Lead trial counsel and all parties must attend final pretrial proceedings ready to discuss settlement and scheduling with full authority.
“Lead trial counsel and all parties shall be present and prepared with full authority to discuss all aspects of the case, including pleadings, settlement and scheduling.”
Trial
Trial briefs are required in all cases and are due no later than seven days before final pretrial.
“Trial briefs are required in all cases and must be filed by with the Court, no later than seven (7) days before the Final Pretrial.”
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).
How Judge Gaughan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In the reviewed immigration mandamus case, the court resolved jurisdiction first and did not reach the defendants’ alternative merits argument under Rule 12(b)(6).
“Because this Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims here, it does not reach Defendants’ alternative basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).”
In Frindt, Gaughan denied partial judgment on the pleadings because the wage complaint plausibly sought relief beyond unpaid ERISA contributions; she also declined to consider a new argument raised for the first time in the movant’s reply.
“the amended complaint has plausibly alleged that the claims are based on more than the unpaid ERISA benefits.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Union's Complaint and this case must be dismissed.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Coach, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Federal Defendant Timothy Shook's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) screening dismissal of a pro se IFP complaint (no plausible 1983 claim; private-party defendant, no state action). Grounding quote: 'the Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed. The complaint, even liberally construed, fails to state any plausible federal claim upon which the Court may grant him relief.' This screening disposition did not resolve a litigated motion.
“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s product liability claims are barred by Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“For the reasons stated above, defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted except as to the four FOIA requests discussed herein. The case is stayed as to those requests pending plaintiff’s exhaustion of his administrative remedies.”
“For all the aforementioned reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case is dismissed.”
“State Farm’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to Counts 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of Thornton’s Complaint and DENIED as to Counts 1, 2, 6 and 7.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 132 days (N = 4).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 7 days (N = 7).
The selected 2020-2021 civil matters include employment, wage-and-hour, consumer credit, Social Security, contract, civil-rights, disability, trademark and habeas cases. A separate later sample captures senior-status work. These selected dockets do not measure the judge's career-wide case mix.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| 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 Northern District of Ohio, not for Judge Gaughan: 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 | 2,048 | 7.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 394 | 3.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,035 | 5.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 607 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 18 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,048 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,008 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,137 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,330 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,432 | 9.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,788 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2019 | 3,158 | 9.9 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 Gaughan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gaughan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gaughan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace