Pamela Pepper
How Judge Pepper rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pepper
Pamela Pepper is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Pepper received a commission on December 8, 2014.
Judge Pepper's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pepper, 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.
- Tips for Practicing Before Judge Pepper ↗
- Judge Pepper's Standard Voir Dire Questions, Jury Selection Process and Opening Instructions: Criminal ↗
Key rules
Filing
For a stipulation requiring court action, file a motion asking the judge to act on the agreement.
“If what you are agreeing to requires me to do something in order to effectuate it, you need to ask me to do what you have agreed that you’d like me to do.”
Filing
Email a proposed order approving a stipulation to chambers in Word rather than PDF format.
“Send it—in Word, not a PDF—to the proposed order email box, [email protected], your proposed order”
Filing
Do not send paper courtesy copies to chambers.
“don’t provide chambers with paper courtesy copies.”
Motions
File a motion when asking Judge Pepper for court action; a letter does not trigger the local response deadlines.
“If you want me to do something, the best way to ask is to file a motion. I’ve noticed that many lawyers communicate with the court by writing letters. Sometimes I don’t know what to do with a letter—are you just writing to provide me with some information? Do you want me to take a particular action? If you file a motion, and state the relief you are requesting, then I’ll better know what you need from me, and can respond accordingly. The motion also will trigger the deadlines for responding under our local rules— letters don’t do that.”
Conferences
To reschedule a hearing, file a joint motion or call chambers with all parties on the line; if they disagree, the requesting party must move.
“If you need to re-schedule a hearing, please either file a joint motion or call the chambers group line with all parties on the telephone. If all parties are present on the call and agree to the adjournment, we’ll re-schedule the hearing. If the parties aren’t in agreement regarding the adjournment, the party asking for the adjournment will need to file a motion”
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 Pepper decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Lanham Act disgorgement dispute, she found that even the defendants’ modified request would be excessive and produce a windfall.
“Nevertheless, the court finds that even the defendants' modified disgorgement request is excessive and would constitute a windfall.”
In Myers, Pepper denied both motions to dismiss because the pleaded collection-letter claims required factual development under the consumer-protection statutes.
“dismissal is typically not available under 12(b)(6).”
In Koehler, Pepper applied ordinary Title VII notice pleading and allowed the class allegations to proceed before discovery, while dismissing claims the plaintiffs conceded.
“Title-VII claims are not subject to a heightened pleading standard.”
In a Family and Medical Leave Act summary-judgment ruling, she refused to let an employer rely on attendance violations tied to leave that was properly requested and later approved, while leaving unrelated termination grounds open.
“The defendant cannot use its attendance policy as an excuse to violate the law.”
Procedural preferences
In a briefing dispute, she checked a purported quotation against the cited decision and stated that the quoted words did not appear on the cited page.
“The plaintiff seems to have made up the 'quote' in his brief that purports to be from Swaffer. ... The court has read page 4 of Swaffer -- a decision by this court's colleague, Judge J.P. Stadtmueller -- three times and cannot find these words.”
In a case with a standing challenge, she treated standing as a prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction before considering the requested relief.
“Standing is the sine qua non of subject matter jurisdiction.”
In a class settlement, she reviewed negotiated recovery against dismissal risk, distribution method, objections and opt-outs before final approval and the fee award. The absence of objections alone did not replace that review.
“the court concludes that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and will grant the unopposed motion for approval of settlement.”
In a discovery dispute, she denied reopening after the plaintiffs let the deadline pass without filing a motion to stay or extend it.
“The plaintiffs could have filed a brief motion seeking a stay or an extension to preserve their rights. They did not do so.”
Cautions
In a disgorgement dispute, she noted that the plaintiff’s arguments about the proper award contradicted its earlier arguments on liability.
“the arguments the plaintiff makes before this court regarding the appropriate award of disgorged profits are the opposite of the arguments it made before Judge Randa regarding liability.”
In a case seeking relief connected to a presidential election, she dismissed because the federal court had no authority or jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
“Federal judges do not appoint the president in this country. One wonders why the plaintiffs came to federal court and asked a federal judge to do so. ... But this federal court has no authority or jurisdiction to grant the relief the remaining plaintiff seeks. The court will dismiss the case.”
In Berry, Pepper granted summary judgment on contract and promissory-estoppel claims after rejecting tolling and equitable estoppel under the one-year suit limitation.
“The record does not support tolling or the doctrine of equitable estoppel in this case.”
In Jordan, Pepper granted habeas relief after finding that counsel’s failure to object to prosecutorial vouching met the ineffective-assistance standard.
“the court must grant the petition on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”
She declined to convert an unopposed failure-to-prosecute dismissal into a with-prejudice sanction where the respondent had not shown deliberate refusal to comply. The habeas merits remained undecided.
“This is not a case that warrants the harsh sanction of dismissal with prejudice.”
In one international service dispute, Pepper sanctioned a company after finding that it deliberately evaded service, while declining to sanction the individual named in the same request.
“The court finds that BHP actively tried to avoid service, abusing the judicial process and acting in bad faith.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The court GRANTS Defendant Governor Tony Evers's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 51.”
“The court GRANTS Defendant Wisconsin Elections Commission and Its Members' Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 53.”
“The court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Corrected Motion for Declaratory, Emergency, and Permanent Injunctive Relief. Dkt. No. 6.”
“The court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to be Considered in an Expedited Manner Dkt. No. 10.”
“Defendants' motion for judgment consistent with the Seventh Circuit's opinion GRANTED. Defendants AWARDED $232,000 in disgorged profits.”
“Defendant's motion for attorney fees GRANTED; defendants AWARDED $630,449.82 in attorney fees.”
“Plaintiff's motion to restrict GRANTED; Clerk of Court to RESTRICT document at dkt. no. 149-1 to court and case participants until further order of the court.”
“Court Minutes and Order RE: Proceedings held before Judge Pamela Pepper on 2/13/2019: GRANTING 8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Michael Newman, Newman & Newman LLC without prejudice. (Amended complaint due by 3/22/2019).”
“Accordingly, the court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss, With two exceptions.”
“the court denies the plaintiffs' summary judgment motions, grants the defendants' summary judgment motion, denies as moot other motions from the plaintiffs, and dismisses this case.”
“The court DENIES Aurora Health Care Inc.'s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 14).”
“The court also DENIES Americollect Inc.'s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 21).”
“ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DKT. NO. 1) AND ORDERING RESPONDENT TO RELEASE JORDAN FROM CUSTODY UNLESS THE STATE INITIATES PROCEEDINGS WITHIN NINETY DAYS”
“The court GRANTS the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims. Dkt. No. 41.”
“The court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval. Dkt. No. 33.”
“The court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for final approval of settlement. Dkt. No. 46.”
“The court GRANTS the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for approval of attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. No. 44.”
“The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 29.”
“The court DENIES the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen discovery. Dkt. No. 60.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 243.5 days (N = 20).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 117 days (N = 7).
Descriptive from the nature-of-suit and cause fields across the enumerated cohorts; not an exhaustive census.
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 | 9 |
| 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 | 30 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 9 | 30 |
| Sep 2025 | 19 | 40 |
| Mar 2025 | 42 | 43 |
| Sep 2024 | 63 | 48 |
| Mar 2024 | 56 | 42 |
| Sep 2023 | 58 | 34 |
| Mar 2023 | 25 | 28 |
| Sep 2022 | 15 | 32 |
| Mar 2022 | 30 | 28 |
| Sep 2021 | 27 | 24 |
| Mar 2021 | 10 | 19 |
| Sep 2020 | 10 | 17 |
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 Pepper: 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 Pepper with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pepper, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pepper's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace