Joseph Peter Stadtmueller
How Judge Stadtmueller rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Stadtmueller
Joseph Peter Stadtmueller is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Stadtmueller received a commission on June 1, 1987.
Judge Stadtmueller's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Stadtmueller, 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
Conferences
Proceedings are in person unless the docket says otherwise.
“Effective June 1, 2022, all proceedings before Judge J.P. Stadtmueller will be in person unless otherwise noted on the docket.”
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 Stadtmueller decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Stadtmueller left product-similarity questions for trial when each side presented competing evidence.
“However, given the defendants’ evidence highlighting differences, and Metso’s evidence demonstrating similarity, the question of whether the products are sufficiently similar requires factual determinations not appropriately made at the summary judgment phase.”
Stadtmueller treated a location-based augmented-reality game as protected expression and required the county to justify restrictions under First Amendment standards.
“Accordingly, the Court concludes that Texas Rope ‘Em qualifies for First Amendment protection and that the County’s motion to dismiss on that ground must be denied.”
Procedural preferences
Stadtmueller required a summary-judgment opponent to identify specific record facts rather than rely on pleadings alone.
“A party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
In the Isreal civil rights suit, he dismissed several claims without prejudice and allowed a pro se plaintiff an amended complaint because he could not conclude amendment would be futile at that stage.
“The Court cannot necessarily conclude at this juncture that amendment as to this claim would be futile. Accordingly, the dismissal of this claim will operate without prejudice.”
In Hartford Life’s unjust enrichment case, Stadtmueller awarded simple prejudgment interest after the insurer revised its calculation and acknowledged that compound interest did not apply.
“Plaintiff provided those figures, admitting that the facts here only warrant simple interest.”
In one trademark case, Stadtmueller treated arguments first raised in the dismissal movant’s reply as waived because the opposing party had no opportunity to respond.
“This tactic is proscribed because it deprives the non-movant of the ability to challenge arguments that could have been made in the opening brief, and deprives the Court of the benefit of each side's views on a given argument.”
Cautions
Stadtmueller did not allow a party to replace the factual theory pleaded in the complaint while opposing summary judgment.
“contains not a whisper about such allegations, however, and she cannot make such a drastic change to the factual basis of her claim in response to a motion for summary judgment.”
After a copyright trial in Prepared Food Photos, Stadtmueller denied both sides’ attorney fee requests and declined costs because the judgment had no prevailing party.
“Because there is no prevailing party in this matter, the Court further finds that neither party is entitled to its costs.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that defendant Luebke’s motion to dismiss (Docket # 7) be and the same is hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiffs Claims for Misappropriation of Combination Trade Secrets Relating to XL600 and XL900 Conical Crushers (Docket # 232) be and the same is hereby DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for a permanent injunction and default judgment (Docket # 125) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to amend/correct the scheduling order (Docket # 99) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot;”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 37 (Docket # 100) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot; and”
“IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by Dr. Cahee and the Fond du Lac Clinic (Docket #38) be and the same is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court grants summary judgment as to Rose’s Rehabilitation Act claim against Dr. Cahee and the Fond du Lac Clinic and denies summary judgment as to the remaining claims against these defendants.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by Agnesian (Docket # 47) be and the same is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The court grants summary judgment as to Rose’s ADA claim against Agnesian and denies summary judgment as to the remaining claims against Agnesian.”
“the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket #44) be and the same is hereby GRANTED in all remaining respects”
“Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket #60) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“same is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;”
“Mutual Insurance Corporation’s motion for summary judgment (Docket #129) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“motion to join the plaintiff’s briefing in opposition to summary judgment (Docket #151) be and the same is hereby GRANTED.”
“defendant’s motions to dismiss (Docket #11 and #12) be and the same are hereby DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Docket #6) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (Docket #14) be and the same is hereby DENIED;”
“Defendants’ motion to stay discovery and hold in abeyance Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (Docket #23) be and the same is hereby DENIED.”
“defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Docket #63) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket #37) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Docket #59) be and the same is hereby DENIED;”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket #33) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff’s motions to seal (Docket #31 and #46) be and the same are hereby GRANTED;”
“documents filed in support of her motion for class certification (Docket #41) be and the same is hereby GRANTED;”
“documents filed in support of her motion for class certification (Docket #38) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot,”
“certification (Docket #39) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The indexed slices included civil-rights, prisoner, contract, product-liability, labor, Social Security, intellectual-property, bankruptcy, criminal, forfeiture, and habeas matters. The sample intentionally combined older terminated cases with recent pending cases.
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 | 2 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 Eastern District of Wisconsin, not for Judge Stadtmueller: 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 | 1,062 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 137 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 879 | 6.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 36 | 13.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 22.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,062 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 982 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,028 | 8 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,065 | 9.5 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,134 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,184 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,253 | 6.9 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 Stadtmueller with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Stadtmueller, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Stadtmueller's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace