Joan Nancy Ericksen
How Judge Ericksen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Post-judgment reconsideration is very hard in front of Ericksen, and she does not let a litigant's choice of label control: she will construe a motion by its substance across Rule 60(b), Rule 59(e), and D. Minn. LR 7.2(j) and deny it under all of them. A Rule 60(b) motion 'is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits,' merely restating arguments already considered fails Rule 59(e), and reconsideration requires a showing of 'compelling circumstances.' Bring genuinely new grounds or do not move.
“Rule 60(b) ‘is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits.’ ... merely restating what has already been considered is insufficient to warrant relief under Rule 59(e). ... The submission makes no showing of ‘compelling circumstances’ to justify reconsideration.”
Ericksen relies heavily on her magistrate judges: she adopts unobjected Reports & Recommendations as a matter of course, and when a party (including a pro se litigant) objects, she conducts a genuine de novo review under D. Minn. LR 72.2(b) / 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) before ruling. Litigants must file timely, specific objections to preserve review.
“Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation. ... The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. See D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Based on that review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation”
Cautions
On a Rule 12 motion in an FDCPA case Ericksen disposes of claims at a granular, sub-provision level rather than all-or-nothing: in Baker she dismissed the 1692f claim without prejudice, dismissed specific 1692d/1692e general-provision and 1692e(2) theories with prejudice as to one communication, and let the rest proceed. Plead and defend each statutory subsection separately; a partial dismissal is the likely outcome.
“Allstate's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART ... Baker's claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Baker's claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d's general provision, 1692e's general provision, and 1692e(2) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to April's message.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Allstate's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth below: ... Allstate's motion as to the remainder of Baker's claims is DENIED.”
“As a result, no matter how construed, Soto's ‘Request for Rehearing’ is denied. ... Plaintiff's Request for Rehearing According to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60 [ECF No. 9] is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment of Defendants Agrimson, Helmaniak, Jonk, Larson, Nelson, Reid, Simms, Tagawa, and Thielen [Docket No. 46] is GRANTED; the action against these defendants is dismissed with prejudice”
“Defendant Stephen Craane, M.D.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 55], is GRANTED; the action against this defendant is dismissed with prejudice”
“Defendants Dr. Michael Koeplin and Dr. Joshua Colton's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 61] is GRANTED; the action against these defendants is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 11] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 19] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Opinions of John S. Pierce Regarding Block-Billing [ECF No. 141] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Counterclaim [ECF No. 159] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 67] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 74] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony [ECF No. 82] is GRANTED.”
“Defendant's Daubert Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 36] is DENIED.”
“Respondent's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 11] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED, and the case is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for reversal and award of benefits.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 18] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand [Docket No. 18] is GRANTED, and the action is remanded to Hennepin County District Court; and”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Docket No. 12] is DENIED.”
“Wells Fargo Bank's motion for default judgment [Docket No. 30] is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 470 days (N = 1).
Ericksen-assigned dockets confirmed via the docket records. The 2013-2019 sample is dominated by short miscellaneous/forfeiture matters (US v. $90,000 / $44,630 / $42,430 in U.S. Currency; subpoena-enforcement miscellaneous actions for AstraZeneca, 3M, Wesco Insurance) plus FDCPA/Truth-in-Lending (Dokken v. Convergent, Baker v. Allstate), Social Security appeals (Slavicek), prisoner civil-rights and 2255 petitions (Allen v. Jussila, Campbell v. United States), and federal criminal cases (US v. Morgenstern, US v. Yang). The published orders reviewed here also touched pharmaceutical litigation (Lundbeck) and consumer/trademark matters (Miracle-Ear). Not exhaustive; she took senior status 2019-10-15 so post-2019 civil assignment volume drops.
Put Judge Ericksen's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Ericksen actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Ericksen's own signed orders and cites them.