Atsushi Wallace Tashima
How Judge Tashima rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tashima
Atsushi Wallace Tashima is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Tashima received a commission on January 4, 1996. Judge Tashima previously served on the United States District Court for the Central District of California, commissioned there on June 30, 1980. Judge Tashima assumed senior status on June 30, 2004.
Judge Tashima's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Tashima's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 11, 2026).
How Judge Tashima decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a federal-preemption challenge to California's worker-classification test, Tashima focused on whether the generally applicable rule had a significant connection to motor carriers' prices, routes, or services. Its traditional state-law application was too tenuous to be displaced by the federal statute.
“We hold that the Borello standard, a generally applicable test used in a traditional area of state regulation, is not ‘related to’ prices, routes, or services, and therefore is not preempted.”
In a False Claims Act case, Tashima accepted detailed allegations of a fraudulent billing scheme paired with reliable indicators that claims were submitted. The relator did not need to identify a representative invoice at the pleading stage.
“To state an FCA claim, a relator is not required to identify actual examples of submitted false claims; instead, ‘it is sufficient to allege 'particular details of a scheme to submit false claims paired with reliable indicia that lead to a strong inference that claims were actually submitted.'’”
In applying the hate-crime sentencing enhancement, Tashima read the guideline's title, history, and purpose together and required an actual finding of hate or animus. The sentence was vacated because the district court had not made that finding beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The question we address is whether the sentencing enhancement for a hate crime motivation, found in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 3A1.1(a), requires a finding that the defendant was motivated by hate or animus. We conclude that such a finding is required.”
Procedural preferences
In long-running water-rights litigation, Tashima rejected a sua sponte preclusion dismissal entered without briefing or argument. Even in an old and complex proceeding, the parties had to receive a meaningful opportunity to address claim or issue preclusion before dismissal.
“This circuit has never ‘upheld a dismissal for claim or issue preclusion where the parties were not given any opportunity to be heard on the issue,’ Headwaters v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2005), and we decline to do so here.”
Cautions
In a boating-accident case, Tashima enforced admiralty jurisdiction's location requirement at the threshold. Because the accident did not occur on navigable waters, the court affirmed dismissal without considering the separate connection test.
“Because Garrett has not met the location test for navigable waters, we need not reach the connection test. The district court properly dismissed this action for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.”
“Accordingly, the judgment revoking supervised release and the sentence are AFFIRMED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.”
“The district court's grant of summary judgment to Nago is AFFIRMED.”
“Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of Okafor's Rule 41(g) motion.”
“AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, sentence VACATED, and REMANDED.”
“REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.”
“The judgment and sentence on revocation of supervised release are AFFIRMED.”
“The Plan's geographical limitation accordingly does not violate either the Federal Parity Act or the California Parity Act. The judgment is AFFIRMED.”
“Because Garrett has not met the location test for navigable waters, we need not reach the connection test. The district court properly dismissed this action for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1). AFFIRMED.”
“REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.”
Draft for Judge Tashima with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tashima, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tashima's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace