Jennifer G. Zipps
How Judge Zipps rules, drawn from 40 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Zipps
Jennifer Guerin Zipps is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Zipps received a commission on October 5, 2011.
Judge Zipps's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Zipps, 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.
- Criminal Order of Referral ↗
- Exhibit List ↗
- Joint Proposed Pretrial Order - Civil ↗
- Required Notice to Court Reporter ↗
- Trial Notebook ↗
- Waiver or Non-Waiver of District Judge Disqualification ↗
- Witness List ↗
Key rules
Trial
For a bench trial, file trial briefs, exhibit objections, motions in limine, stipulations, and proposed findings 30 days before trial.
“Trial briefs, objections to exhibits, motions in limine, stipulations, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed and served thirty (30) days prior to trial.”
Trial
For a jury trial, file proposed voir dire, exhibit objections, deposition testimony, stipulations, and trial memoranda 30 days before trial.
“Proposed voir dire, objections to exhibits, deposition testimony, stipulations, and trial memoranda shall be filed thirty (30) days before trial.”
Trial
File stipulated jury instructions and verdict forms 30 days before a jury trial.
“Stipulated jury instructions and verdict forms shall be filed thirty (30) days before trial.”
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 8, 2026).
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 Brasier, Zipps denied the railroad's summary judgment motion on disability discrimination and unlawful screening claims after finding disputed facts about the basis for the employee's work restrictions.
“Union Pacific's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 83) is denied.”
Procedural preferences
In Doe, Zipps allowed the plaintiffs to proceed under pseudonyms after finding that disclosure of their names and gender identities risked severe harm and that anonymity outweighed any prejudice to defendants.
“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.”
In Wilson v. Commissioner, she adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and reversed and remanded the Social Security decision 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.”
In a False Claims Act discovery dispute, Zipps required complete responses rather than promises to supplement later, and compelled records she found relevant to the surviving claim.
“Discovery responses may not be used as placeholders for future discovery responses.”
In a safety-based anonymity request, the court allowed a pseudonym and targeted redactions but required a specific showing before sealing the entire case.
“Plaintiff has not, however, demonstrated that sealing the entire case is necessary to protect those interests.”
Cautions
In Tohono O’odham Nation v. Department of the Interior, she dismissed the APA challenge with prejudice after finding it time-barred and amendment futile.
“Intervenor-Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Case (Doc. 49) is granted.”
In Coby v. City of Tombstone, she granted judgment on the pleadings only as to Count Two, dismissed that count without prejudice, and allowed 14 days to amend.
“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.”
In Arizona Alliance for Community Health Centers v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Zipps dismissed Count I with leave to amend because she could not conclude that amendment would be futile.
“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.
“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).”
“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.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 56) is denied.”
“Union Pacific's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 83) is denied.”
“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.”
“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.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Horne's Motion to Transfer (Doc. 21) is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Tri-Val, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint (Doc. 15.) is GRANTED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Joinder of Required Party (Doc. 6.) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 16) is denied.”
“Intervenor-Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Case (Doc. 49) is granted.”
“Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 52) is 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.”
“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.”
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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 7 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 8 |
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 United States District Court for the District of Arizona, not for Judge Zipps: 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 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 135 | 2.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,001 | 5.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 335 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 14 | 32.4 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,485 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,278 | 6.7 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,126 | 8.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,181 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,857 | 20.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,128 | 12.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,842 | 9.6 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 Zipps with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Zipps, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Zipps's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace