Lynn Steven Adelman
How Judge Adelman rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Adelman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At summary judgment he enforces the Rule 56 / Local Rule 56 evidentiary burden strictly and even-handedly: a movant (here even a pro se prisoner moving for his own SJ) must cite particular record evidence and file the supporting affidavits/declarations; reiterating the complaint's allegations is not enough.
“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.”
He enforces administrative-exhaustion limits on federal-employee discrimination suits: claims must have been charged in (or be 'like or reasonably related' to) the EEOC charge, measured by whether they 'describe the same conduct and implicate the same individuals'; he will take judicial notice of the undisputed EEOC charge on a motion to dismiss.
“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.
“It has also stated that a court must not read limitations from the specification into the claims.”
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.
“The materials relate to testimony by expert witnesses that did not bear on the outcome this motion, and which I did not even consider.”
Cautions
Successive habeas: an unauthorized second-or-successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition will be dismissed without Seventh Circuit authorization, and a certificate of appealability denied absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right (2253(c)(2)). He routinely adopts Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries's screening R&Rs.
“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.”
“Midwest’s motion for clarification of the court’s scheduling order (EOF No. 37) is DENIED as MOOT.”
“Travis Kalanick’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED, and Kalanick is DISMISSED from this action.”
“Uber’s motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED”
“Uber’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is DENIED”
“Uber’s motion in the alternative to stay the case pending arbitration (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED.”
“Scag's motion for claim construction (ECF No. 21) is DENIED .”
“THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 35) is DENIED.”
“Wisconsin Freeze Dried's motion to remand is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART . The motion is granted to the extent that its claims for breach of the non-disclosure agreement and theft of trade secrets (Count VII of the Complaint) are REMANDED to the Waukesha County Circuit Court. In all other respects, the motion is denied; Counts I to VI of the Complaint are not remanded.”
“For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED . Because the plaintiff does not contend that she could cure the legal defects that resulted in the dismissal of her claims by filing an amended complaint, I will not, sua sponte , grant her leave to amend.”
“For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that the government's motion to strike the defendants' affirmative defenses is GRANTED to the extent that the affirmative defenses are stricken without prejudice. The defendants are granted 30 days from the date of this order to file amended answers containing affirmative defenses that conform to the standard in Heller Financial .”
“For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED that Eaton's motion for partial summary judgment against AIU Insurance Company, Granite State Insurance Company, New Hampshire Insurance Company, and North River Insurance Company (ECF No. 122) is GRANTED .”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' motions to restrict certain materials to the parties (ECF Nos. 129 & 140) are GRANTED .”
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).
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