Rosemary Márquez
How Judge Márquez rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Márquez
Rosemary Márquez is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Márquez received a commission on May 19, 2014.
Judge Márquez's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Márquez, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
In civil cases, do not send paper courtesy copies of electronically filed documents to chambers unless the court orders them.
“the parties in civil cases shall not submit paper courtesy copies of electronically filed documents to chambers unless specifically ordered by the Court to do 17 18 so.”
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 Márquez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Southwest Fair Housing Council v. WG Scottsdale, she resolved the cross-motions for summary judgment claim by claim, granting only parts of each motion.
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) is granted in part and denied in part... granted as to the Rehabilitation Act claim... denied as to the Americans with Disabilities Act claim... Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is granted as to the issue of standing... otherwise denied.”
In Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Diamondback Shooting Sports, she denied a requested Landis stay after weighing the alleged ongoing harm against the defendants’ stated litigation burden.
“After weighing the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or denial of a stay, the Court declines to grant a Landis stay.”
In Romo v. State Farm, she declined to consider evidence outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because discovery had not begun and summary judgment was premature.
“The Court cannot consider Plaintiffs' evidence without converting the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion into one for summary judgment under Rule 56, and the Court declines to do so, because discovery in this action has not commenced and a motion for summary judgment is premature.”
In an online publication dispute, remote contact with the plaintiff and knowledge of her Arizona residence did not establish that the publisher aimed its conduct at the state. The court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
“mere remote communications between Plaintiff and Defendant are insufficient to show that Defendant has a connection with Arizona itself.”
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. 18) is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s CFA, RICO, and public nuisance claims. The Motion is otherwise denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 29) is granted. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 32) and Notice (Doc. 34) are denied. No further motions or arguments regarding default will be considered.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. Summary judgment is denied as to the issue of standing. b. Summary judgment is granted as to the Rehabilitation Act claim. c. Summary judgment is granted as to the Affordable Care Act claim. d. Summary judgment is denied as to the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. e. Summary judgment is denied as to the Fair Housing Act and Arizona Fair Housing Act claims.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is granted as to the issue of standing. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is otherwise denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Get Air, LLC’s Objection (Doc. 164) is overruled, and Judge Markovich’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 158) is accepted and adopted in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Get Air, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 97) is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 28) and Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. 28-1) are granted. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 27) is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to take Judicial Notice (Doc. 33) is denied, and Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 34) is denied as moot.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 67) is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 69) is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to file Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61) is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Agency Defendants' Motion for Voluntary Remand (Doc. 72) is granted to the extent it requests voluntary remand of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Navigable Waters Protection Rule is vacated and remanded for reconsideration”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending Motions (Docs. 47, 75, 77, 79) are denied without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is partially granted and partially denied. The Motion is granted to the extent that the claims for property damage and car rental expenses asserted in Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. 1-3) are dismissed without prejudice. The Motion is otherwise denied”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. 12) is granted to the extent the Court has considered the arguments raised in the attached Surreply (Doc. 12-2).”
“Defendants Pima County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is granted. Defendant Pima County Sheriff's Office is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is dismissed without prejudice.”
“Defendants City of Tucson and Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) is granted. Defendant Tucson City Attorney Michael Rankin is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant City of Tucson is dismissed without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Strike Affirmative Defenses (Docs. 64, 65) are partially granted and partially denied, as set forth above and summarized below”
“After weighing the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or denial of a stay, the Court declines to grant a Landis stay. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Stay (Doc. 99) is denied.”
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 8 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 11 |
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 Márquez: 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 Márquez with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Márquez, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Márquez's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace