Jennifer G. Zipps

United States District Court for the District of Arizona district Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 30 signed orders read

How Judge Zipps decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In ADA disability-discrimination cases she denies an employer's summary judgment where genuine disputes remain over whether the adverse employment action was disability-based.

“Union Pacific's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 83) is denied.”

Procedural preferences

In cases involving vulnerable plaintiffs she grants leave to proceed pseudonymously where the privacy interest outweighs the presumption of open proceedings.

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Via Pseudonym (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Megan Roe, and their parents and next friends, Helen Doe, James Doe, Kate Roe, and Robert Roe, may proceed using pseudonyms in this matter.”

She resolves Social Security appeals by adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and, where the ALJ's decision is not supported, reverses and remands to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Administrative Law Judge's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order and Judge Rateau's Report & Recommendation.”

Cautions

An APA challenge filed outside the limitations period is dismissed as time-barred, with prejudice and without leave to amend where the defect cannot be cured.

“Intervenor-Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Case (Doc. 49) is granted.”

On a Rule 12(c) motion she dismisses only the claims that fail, typically without prejudice and with leave to amend, and lets the rest proceed.

“Defendants City of Tombstone, Jim Adams, Marshall Sharp, Rebecca Larsen McKeown, and Jeff Garcia's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 16) is granted in part and denied in part. Count Two of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order.”

When she grants a motion to dismiss she follows the Ninth Circuit default of allowing leave to amend unless amendment would be futile, so a first dismissal is typically a chance to replead rather than a case-ender.

“When granting a motion to dismiss, the district court is generally required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend, even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless amendment would be futile. Because the Court cannot conclude that amendment would be futile, the Court will dismiss Count I with leave to amend.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Jance v. Homerun Offer LLC
4:20-cv-00482-TUC-JGZ
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiff's claims against All Star Investments and Homerun Offer under 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) are dismissed without leave to amend. The Motion is also granted to the extent that Plaintiff's claims against All Star Investments are dismissed. The Motion is denied to the extent it requests dismissal of Plaintiff's claim against Homerun Offer for violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).”

Stenson v. Radiology Limited PLC (MTD granted, pre-appeal)
4:19-cv-00306-TUC-JGZ
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 25) be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Dismissal as to the United States shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Stenson v. Radiology Limited PLC (MTD denied, post-remand)
4:19-cv-00306-TUC-JGZ
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 56) is denied.”

Brasier v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
4:21-cv-00065-TUC-JGZ-MSA
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Union Pacific's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 83) is denied.”

Doe v. Horne
4:23-cv-00185-TUC-JGZ
Motion to proceed pseudonymously (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Via Pseudonym (Doc. 2) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Jane Doe and Megan Roe, and their parents and next friends, Helen Doe, James Doe, Kate Roe, and Robert Roe, may proceed using pseudonyms in this matter.”

Twin City Fire Insurance Company v. DanceIt! Studio LLC
4:22-cv-00489-TUC-JGZ · 2024-01-31
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff Twin City's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Twin City declaring that Twin City owes no duty to defend or indemnify the Valencias or DanceIt! under the Policy.”

Doe v. Horne (motion to transfer venue)
4:23-cv-00185-TUC-JGZ · 2023-05-25
Motions to transfer (defendant) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Horne's Motion to Transfer (Doc. 21) is DENIED.”

Valenzuela v. Ruby J Farms LLC
4:21-cv-00442-JGZ · 2022-08-11
Motions to dismiss (third-party defendant) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tri-Val, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint (Doc. 15.) is GRANTED.”

Motion for joinder (defendant) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Joinder of Required Party (Doc. 6.) is DENIED.”

Tohono O'odham Nation v. United States Department of Interior
4:24-cv-00034-JGZ · 2024-04-16
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 16) is denied.”

Tohono O'odham Nation v. United States Department of Interior
4:24-cv-00034-JGZ · 2024-06-06
Motions to dismiss (intervenor-defendant) Granted

“Intervenor-Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Case (Doc. 49) is granted.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 52) is granted.”

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
4:23-cv-00008-JGZ · 2023-12-12
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Administrative Law Judge's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order and Judge Rateau's Report & Recommendation.”

Gallegos v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
4:25-cv-00062-JGZ · 2025-10-20
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Administrative Law Judge's decision is reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order and Judge Marner's Report & Recommendation.”

Put Judge Zipps's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Zipps actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Zipps's own signed orders and cites them.