Lynn Steven Adelman
How Judge Adelman rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Adelman
Lynn S. Adelman is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Adelman received a commission on December 23, 1997.
Judge Adelman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Adelman, 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
Contacting chambers
File requests for court review or action, including hearing scheduling, on the case docket.
“Case parties seeking review or action by the Court including hearing scheduling must file their request to the case. Requests received by other means such as telephone may not be honored.”
Filing
Electronically file proposed orders and email chambers an editable Word copy.
“Attorneys are required to electronically file all proposed orders to the docket in addition to emailing an edit friendly Word document of them to Judge Adelman's Proposed Order email; [email protected]. The absence of an edit friendly copy may result in processing delays and/or communication from the Court instructing parties to provide these documents before an order can be entered.”
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 Adelman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Johnson v. Kammer, Adelman denied the prisoner's summary judgment motion because it cited no record evidence or supporting exhibits, affidavits, or declarations and instead repeated allegations from the complaint.
“allegations alone are insufficient to grant a motion for summary judgment. Because the plaintiff's motion does not comply with the Federal or Local rules and provides no evidence showing that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, I will deny his motion.”
In a federal-employee discrimination case, he held that two decisions by different people three years apart were not like or reasonably related for administrative-exhaustion purposes.
“Two different decisions made by two different individuals three years apart cannot be characterized as like or reasonably related. ... To conclude otherwise would frustrate the purpose of administrative exhaustion.”
In the reviewed wage case, he declined judicial estoppel where the record did not strongly show intentional concealment of the claim in bankruptcy and applying estoppel would have harmed both the employee and her creditors.
“DoAll has produced no strong evidence that Midkiff engaged in any intentional deception of the courts or manipulation of the legal system of the sort that the doctrine of judicial estoppel is intended to prevent.”
In the reviewed patent claim-construction ruling, he declined to import a spatial limitation from preferred embodiments where the claim language did not require it.
“Scag has identified no language in its claims that requires separation between the baffles and the deck perimeter.”
In Barkholtz v. Ivory, Adelman held that the amended complaint adequately alleged negligent hiring by a transportation broker after he had dismissed the original claim with leave to amend.
“I find that plaintiffs have adequately pled element four and therefore a claim for negligent hiring.”
Procedural preferences
A proposed intervenor must establish every requirement for intervention as of right; failure on any one element requires denial.
“The proposed intervenor has the burden of establishing all four elements; the lack of even one requires that the court deny the motion.”
In the reviewed arbitration ruling, he enforced a clear delegation clause and stayed rather than dismissed the case so the parties could return if the arbitrator found the broader arbitration provision unenforceable.
“This case is hereby STAYED pending arbitration.”
In the reviewed forum-selection dispute, he enforced the clause claim by claim, remanding nondisclosure and trade-secret claims within its scope while retaining sales-contract claims outside it.
“I will remand Wisconsin Freeze Dried’s claims for breach of the non-disclosure agreement and theft of trade secrets but retain its claims involving the sale of freeze-drying equipment.”
In the reviewed affirmative-defense pleading dispute, he granted leave to replead but urged targeted discovery and summary judgment instead of a successive motion to strike that might require facts outside the pleadings.
“the better approach is for the government to take discovery on the defenses and then bring a motion for summary judgment on any defense that lacks factual support”
In the reviewed insurance ruling, he allowed expert-related materials to remain sealed because they played no role in the decision and therefore could not aid public understanding of the court's reasoning.
“by expert witnesses that did not bear on the outcome this motion, and which I did not even consider.”
In the reviewed insurer dispute, he retained diversity jurisdiction because the challenger did not show to a legal certainty that the value of the underlying claim fell below the statutory threshold.
“However, defendant gives me no reason to conclude to a legal certainty that the value of the claim is really less than the jurisdictional amount.”
Cautions
In this habeas case, he dismissed an unauthorized second or successive petition and declined a certificate of appealability because the petitioner had not made the required constitutional showing.
“Petitioner's unauthorized second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) and this action are hereby DISMISSED. ... the Court finds that petitioner has not made the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), and therefore will not issue a certificate of appealability.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Wilke's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dries' Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 12) is ADOPTED in its entirety. ... Petitioner's unauthorized second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) and this action are hereby DISMISSED. ... the Court finds that petitioner has not made the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), and therefore will not issue a certificate of appealability.”
“For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that the proposed intervenor’s motion to intervene (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.”
“Marsh’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Midwest’s motion for clarification of the court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 37) is DENIED as MOOT.”
“No. 9) is GRANTED, and Kalanick is DISMISSED from this action.”
“12) is GRANTED, Uber’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is DENIED”
“Uber’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is DENIED”
“motion in the alternative to stay the case pending arbitration (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED.”
“remand is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“affirmative defenses is GRANTED to the extent that the affirmative”
“GRANTED. The court declares that (1) a ‘continuous’ trigger of coverage applies”
“to the parties (ECF Nos. 129 & 140) are GRANTED.”
“West Bend Mutual Insurance Company’s motion to intervene is DENIED”
“defendant’s motion to dismiss and its motion to strike are DENIED”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 309.0 days (N = 10).
Illustrative from the docket sample, not an authoritative caseload denominator. Observed dispositions in the sample include merits judgments after summary judgment (Johnson v. Kammer), Rule 41 voluntary dismissals (Global Thermoforming), court-approved FLSA settlements (Behlman v. Fairway Transit), dismissals (Davis v. Wilke), and habeas dismissals (Tinnon v. Fuchs).
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 13 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 18 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 19 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 19 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, not for Judge Adelman: 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 Adelman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Adelman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Adelman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace