Karin J. Immergut
How Judge Immergut rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Immergut
Karin Johanna Immergut is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Immergut received a commission on August 5, 2019.
Judge Immergut's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Immergut, 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
Trial
Counsel must stand when addressing the court.
“Counsel should always stand when addressing the Court.”
Trial
Judge Immergut does not permit questions in aid of objection or recross.
“Judge Immergut does not allow ‘questions in aid of objection’ or re-cross.”
Trial
Judge Immergut does not permit juror questions or readbacks of trial testimony.
“Judge Immergut does not allow questions from jurors during trial or read-backs of trial testimony from the court reporter.”
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 Immergut decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In A.B., allegations that hotel staff could observe repeated escorting, inappropriate dress, violence, and shouting sufficed at the pleading stage to support a trafficking beneficiary claim against the hotel operator.
“Plaintiff here has alleged being routinely escorted by her trafficker in the hotel, being inappropriately dressed in view of hotel staff, and being subjected to violence and loud yelling in the hotel room.”
Procedural preferences
In MacDonald, Immergut let a religious-accommodation claim proceed past dismissal because the employer offered only general assertions about the cost of alternatives to vaccination. She reserved the undue-hardship question for evidence developed later.
“Here, Defendants make only conclusory statements about ‘expend[ing] time and resources’ to offer accommodations other than vaccinations.”
Cautions
In Great West, Immergut excluded a damages expert’s declarations from summary judgment because they supplied no calculation method or underlying basis. A promised later report did not cure the missing methodology.
“The declarations contain no methodology for this Court to assess and do not describe the basis for determining the amount owed by Defendants.”
In Wilski, Immergut assumed pregnancy and birth could sometimes make a jail grievance process unusable, but granted summary judgment because the plaintiff offered no evidence that the process was unavailable to her during the filing period.
“Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the grievance process was effectively unavailable to her. She has not provided any evidence in support of her response to Defendants’ Motion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.”
“this Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF 8, and DENIES as moot Defendant's motion to strike, ECF 15. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“DENIES as moot Defendant's motion to strike, ECF 15.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 202, is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Title VII claim is therefore DENIED. ... Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amendment Claim is therefore GRANTED ... Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Claim for Declaratory Relief is therefore GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF 7, is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, ECF 71, is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion to strike is denied.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 12, is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 32, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court, ECF 7, is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 8, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s federal takings claim is DISMISSED without leave to amend.”
“this Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 25.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 12, is GRANTED... Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend, and this case is DISMISSED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 2020-2021 case sample includes Social Security appeals, employment and other civil-rights matters, prisoner litigation, and criminal cases. Reported durations measure the life of each case, not the time taken to decide a motion.
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 17 |
| Sep 2023 | 9 | 21 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 8 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 15 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| 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 Oregon, not for Judge Immergut: 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 | 1,647 | 9.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 300 | 5.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,316 | 10.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 22 | 33.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,647 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,633 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,472 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,620 | 13.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,501 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,536 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,596 | 11.6 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 Immergut with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Immergut, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Immergut's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace