John Anthony Jelderks

United States District Court for the District of Oregon magistrate 20 signed orders read

How Judge Jelderks decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

When contract terms were imposed after employment began, Jelderks examined whether the agreement preserved the employee's statutory and procedural rights rather than treating arbitration as automatically enforceable.

“However, the courts must guard against attempts to coerce employees into involuntarily signing arbitration agreements”

At summary judgment, Jelderks left authorship questions for trial when the record did not resolve whether creative work was sole or joint.

“On this record, I am unable to determine, as a matter of law, whether Miles is the sole author or whether Miles and Fleming are joint authors.”

Procedural preferences

In administrative-review litigation, he tailored relief to the agency process by vacating the challenged decision while setting deadlines for a proposed study protocol and response.

“Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed study protocol to the agency within 45 days of the entry of this Order, and Defendants shall respond to that proposed protocol within 45 days of the receipt of the proposed protocol.”

Cautions

A party seeking to postpone summary judgment for discovery must identify specific facts the discovery is expected to uncover.

“To obtain a stay pending discovery, Qwest must show that discovery would uncover specific facts which would preclude summary judgment.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Zamora v. Astrue
· 2011-08-31
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“I affirm the decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISS this action with prejudice.”

Meunier v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
· 2014-09-24
Motion to determine unconscionable contract term (plaintiff) Denied

“recommending Plaintiffs Motion for a Determination that there is an Unconscionable Contract Term in the Disability Insurance Policies issued by Defendant [44] be DENIED”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Plaintiffs Claims (#48) should be GRANTED.”

Freece v. Clackamas County
· 2006-07-25
Summary judgment (City of Wilsonville defendants) Granted

“The City of Wilsonville defendants’ motion for summary judgment (# 50) is granted.”

Summary judgment (Clackamas County defendants) Denied

“The Clackamas County defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#48) is denied.”

Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment (# 56) is denied.”

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Owens Corning Corp.
· 2006-06-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (# 30) is denied in its entirety.”

Stellar J Corp. v. Smith & Loveless, Inc.
· 2010-08-05
Motion for partial summary judgment (Stellar J Corporation and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America) Granted

“The motion for partial summary judgment brought by Stellar and Travelers (# 21) should be GRANTED.”

Toth v. INA Life Insurance Co. of New York
· 2009-07-14
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (# 19) should be GRANTED”

Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment (# 28) should be DENIED.”

Salvador v. Allstate Insurance Co.
· 2001-04-04
Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs motion (# 13) for partial summary judgment is DENIED.”

Motion for partial summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s cross-motion (# 19) for partial summary judgment is GRANTED.”

LNG Development Co., LLC v. Port of Astoria
· 2010-01-29
Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs motion for a partial summary judgment establishing that plaintiff has renewed its sublease and that the Port has breached its obligation to LNG by failing to take steps to renew the Master Lease should be granted.”

LeLouis v. Western Directory Co.
· 2001-08-10
Motion to compel arbitration and stay (defendants) Denied

“Defendants’ Motion (# 11) to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is DENIED.”

Thomas v. Trans Union, LLC
· 2002-03-26
Motion for partial summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“I recommend that plaintiffs motion (doc. 62) for partial summary judgment be DENIED.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Defendant’s motions (docs. 86 and 87) to strike certain of plaintiffs exhibits are DENIED as moot”

Motions to strike (defendant) Moot / procedural
Fleming v. Miles
· 2001-06-14
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s motion (# 11) for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated in the opinion.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiffs cross-motion (# 19) for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Delima v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
· 2008-04-23
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (# 52) should be GRANTED as to plaintiffs claims of retaliation and failure to promote under state and federal statutes, as to plaintiffs hostile environment claim, as to plaintiffs wrongful termination claim under Oregon common law, and as to any claim for back pay after November, 2005. The motion should be DENIED as to the balance of plaintiffs claims.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiffs motion to strike (# 72) is GRANTED.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s motions to strike (# 88 and # 104) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set out in Section I.B. above.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted in part

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The 2024 sample consists largely of habeas petitions and includes two matters that remain pending. The three completed matters lasted about three to six months; those case durations measure the life of each case, not motion-decision time.

Put Judge Jelderks's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Jelderks actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Jelderks's own signed orders and cites them.