Sandra Segal Ikuta
How Judge Ikuta rules, drawn from 32 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Ikuta no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Because Veltmann is not in custody for purposes of § 2241, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider her habeas petition. We therefore vacate its order denying Veltmann’s petition and dismiss this case. VACATED AND DISMISSED.”
“We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. ... AFFIRMED.”
“We affirm. The period of time during which Whidbee could commence these claims expired under a state statute of limitations before defendants removed the action to federal court, and the federal rules allowing additional time to effect service of process ... do not extend or revive a state statute of limitations.”
“Because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, and because the IJ had no obligation to give Wang an opportunity to provide additional evidence, we deny the petition.”
“We conclude that a place ‘designated by immigration officers’ for purposes of § 1325(a)(1) refers to a specific immigration facility, not an entire geographic area, and therefore affirm the district court.”
“We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.”
“We conclude that the district court did not err in overruling those objections, because § 554 does not require the government to prove that the defendant knew the nature of the ‘merchandise, article, or object’ that the defendant was exporting contrary to law.”
“We hold that the trustee’s adversary complaint contesting the basis for Lee’s exemptions qualified as an objection to those exemptions under Rule 4003. We therefore affirm.”
“Because Aegis knew of its right to compel arbitration, but made an intentional decision not to compel arbitration in order to take advantage of the judicial forum, and because the plaintiffs incurred costs as a direct result, the district court did not err in concluding that Aegis waived its right to arbitrate. Therefore, we affirm.”
“Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the government, the panel held that the five-year statute of limitations set out by 28 U.S.C. § 2462 ... does not apply to denaturalization proceedings.”
A historical record
Judge Ikuta no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.