Ana Isabel de Alba
How Judge Alba rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Alba decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Affirms convictions against as-applied Second Amendment challenges to federal firearms statutes where the statute is constitutional as applied to the defendant's facts.
“We affirm her conviction. ... Taking all of this into consideration, as applied to the facts of her case, Section 922(a)(6) did not violate Manney's Second Amendment right.”
In trademark-infringement appeals, affirms summary judgment for the defendant where the plaintiff fails to establish a genuine dispute on the likelihood-of-confusion element.
“As explained below, we disagree and affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment. ... Lerner & Rowe failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the likelihood of confusion element of a claim for trademark infringement.”
Procedural preferences
Applies binding circuit precedent strictly, affirming where a claim is foreclosed by prior decisions.
“Bowers' Article III claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and we affirm the revocation of his supervised release.”
In her Reach dissent, de Alba treated likely irreparable harm as a threshold for a stay of a preliminary injunction and would end the inquiry when the movant failed to make that showing.
“Our inquiry should begin and end with irreparable harm when the movant has not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm absent a stay.”
In her Dickinson separate writing, de Alba would enforce the requirement that a stay request and its irreparable-harm basis be properly presented to the district court before appellate review.
“The government ultimately failed to properly move for a stay, and argue irreparable harm, before the district court.”
Cautions
Reverses or vacates where the district court applied the wrong remedy or abused its discretion — for example, reversing and remanding to reinstate a jury's damages award after an improper remittitur.
“Because the district court abused its discretion in granting remittitur, we reverse, vacate, and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury's damages award.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We affirm her conviction. ... Taking all of this into consideration, as applied to the facts of her case, Section 922(a)(6) did not violate Manney's Second Amendment right.”
“[W]e hold that the pro rata method is inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code. ... We therefore reverse and remand this case to the district court to require the bankruptcy court to determine the final allocation amounts under a tax-first method.”
“As explained below, we disagree and affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment. ... Lerner & Rowe failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the likelihood of confusion element of a claim for trademark infringement.”
“Bowers' Article III claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and we affirm the revocation of his supervised release.”
“We hold that the district court correctly applied the PPL framework to the evidence and did not violate any PPL mandate. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment.”
“We hold that the proper remedy was to vacate the final garnishment order. ... [W]e VACATE the district court's final order of garnishment.”
“The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the district court to enter judgment ... the district court did not err in finding that the VA denied Plaintiffs 'meaningful access' to their healthcare ... However, the district court erred in entering judgment against HUD ... and ... erred in finding that the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016 ... imposed judicially enforceable fiduciary duties on the VA.”
“Because the district court abused its discretion in granting remittitur, we reverse, vacate, and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury's damages award.”
“We hold that the district court erroneously concluded that Panelli could not be deceived as a matter of law under California consumer protection laws, and we therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
De Alba dissented from the emergency order and would have denied the government’s stay and administrative-stay motions because its arguments were forfeited and it had not shown likely irreparable harm.
De Alba agreed that the plaintiffs had standing but would have denied the government’s emergency motions because the stay request and irreparable-harm argument were not properly presented below.
Draft for Judge Alba with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Alba, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Alba's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace