André Birotte Jr.
How Judge Birotte rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Birotte
Andre Birotte, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Birotte received a commission on August 8, 2014.
Judge Birotte's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Birotte, 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.
- Judge's Procedures and Schedules ↗
- 1. Standing Order in Civil Case [03-15-2024].pdf ↗
- 2. Order Setting Scheduling Conference [03-15-2024] ↗
- 3. Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates Worksheet [03-15-2024] ↗
- 4. Order re Civil Jury Court Trial [09-04-2026].pdf ↗
- 5. Witness List Template [09-05-24] ↗
- 6. Joint Exhibit List Template 12-01-2023 ↗
- 7. Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order Template 12-01-2023 ↗
- 8. Proposed Order Template [03-15-2024] ↗
- 9. Under Seal Filing Instructions -CIVIL ↗
- 10. Under Seal Filing Instructions - CRIMINAL ↗
Key rules
Motions
A notice of motion must prominently state compliance with the meet-and-confer requirement.
“Local Rule 7-3: The Court strictly enforces Local Rule 7-3’s meet and confer requirement. A Notice of Motion must include a statement of compliance with Local Rule 7-3. The statement of compliance must be prominent, as the Court will not search a filing for the statement. The Court may strike or outright deny a motion that lacks a prominent statement of compliance with Local Rule 7-3, or if counsel fail to meet and confer in good faith.”
Motions
File an opposition to an ex parte or temporary restraining order application within 48 hours after service.
“48 Hours to Oppose an Ex Parte or TRO Application: Any opposition must be filed within 48 hours (2 court days) after service.”
Trial
Each party or affiliated group is generally limited to five motions in limine, subject to the stated exclusions.
“Motions in Limine: The Court limits the number of in limine motions which a party or group of affiliated parties may file to five, not including (1) any motion in limine that seeks an exclusionary sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), and (2) any motion in limine under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993), to exclude or limit expert testimony.”
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).
- General Order 11-10: Alternative Dispute Resolution Program ↗
- General Order 19-01: Criminal Duty Matters Electronic Filing Pilot Project ↗
- General Order 20-13: Criminal Duty Matters Electronic Filing Pilot Project ↗
- General Order 18-02: Submission of Certain Prisoner Filings Through Electronic Mail ↗
- General Order 24-07: Criminal Justice Act Plan ↗
How Judge Birotte decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the reviewed disability-access case, he treated practical access to municipal parallel parking as the relevant public program and found a nearby disabled space to be a reasonable modification that imposed neither an undue burden nor a fundamental alteration.
“Installing a blue curb parking space in front of Plaintiffs apartment building is a reasonable modification that would provide her access to the City’s parking program, and it would neither impose an undue burden on the City nor require the City to alter its existing program.”
In the reviewed copyright injunction, he gave little weight to financial harm arising from activity found likely to infringe and found that authorized filtering alternatives preserved the public's interest in filtered viewing.
“An injunction in this case would not prevent VidAngel or any other company from providing a filtering service similar to ClearPlay’s”
In the reviewed ERISA bench judgment, he reinstated disability benefits after finding that the employability analysis and the full record did not support sustained full-time work within the claimant's restrictions.
“The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff can work any of the positions cited in the CorVel report and finds that the evidence within the AR is insufficient to support the termination of Plaintiffs benefits.”
In the reviewed employment remand, allegations that local managers exercised policy discretion sufficed at the fraudulent-joinder stage even though the court questioned whether the existing pleading would survive a dismissal motion.
“These statements are sufficient to meet Plaintiff’s low burden.”
Procedural preferences
Resolves the named plaintiffs' claims at summary judgment and denies class certification as moot where the individual claims fail.
“the Court GRANTS Stein Mart's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.”
Declines to dispose of wage-statement claims on a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
“For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.”
In the reviewed patent pleading, he refused to require the plaintiff to anticipate and plead around a fact-dependent invalidity defense, and declined to draw defendant-favoring inferences from prosecution-history materials.
“Plaintiff is not required to anticipate each fact-based defense Dadco might assert and plead facts to refute that defense.”
In the reviewed officer-shooting pleading, he separated dismissed claims and unavailable damages allegations from potentially curable defects, allowing fourteen days for another amended complaint.
“Plaintiffs may attempt to cure the deficiencies outlined above by filing a third amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order.”
In the reviewed hotel-wage injunction dispute, failure to establish likely success on the labor-preemption theory ended the preliminary-injunction analysis despite extensive policy arguments.
“Because Plaintiffs have not shown any likelihood of success on the merits, they cannot make the necessary showing of irreparable Harm.”
Cautions
Retains federal jurisdiction over a removed case, denying remand after a fraudulent-joinder and diversity analysis.
“For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.”
Requires medical-device product-liability pleadings to identify a specific parallel regulatory violation and a causal link; conclusory references to federal requirements did not avoid preemption.
“Plaintiffs have not asserted a parallel claim capable of surviving preemption.”
In the reviewed vehicle-warranty remand, the defendant’s unexplained shift between two purchase-price estimates weakened its amount-in-controversy showing.
“Defendant does not explain this discrepancy”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court. GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Moroccanoil’s Motion, and DENIES Groupon’s Motion.”
“the Court GRANTS Stein Mart's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.”
“For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.”
“For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.”
“Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability ... For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is DENIED .”
“Defendant Mentor Worldwide's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to each of Plaintiffs' claims.”
After a bench trial on the administrative record, the court found that the evidence did not support termination of the claimant's long-term disability benefits and ordered the benefits reinstated. The earlier summary-judgment papers had been converted to trial briefs, so no party motion is classified.
“ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE”
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 41) is GRANTED as to the City’s liability under Plaintiffs First, Second, and Third Claims for relief.”
“The City’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“The Court also GRANTS both parties’ unopposed Requests for Judicial Notice.”
“Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, papers and the case file, the court hereby GRANTS the motion for preliminary injunction.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Dadco's motion to dismiss.”
“The Court therefore GRANTS the request to the extent necessary to resolve the issues presented in Dadco's motion to dismiss.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Request for a More Definite Statement is DENIED .”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' SAC is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part .”
“References to wrongful death damages are STRICKEN from paragraphs 43 and 61, and references to decedent's pain and suffering are STRICKEN from paragraphs 112, 127, and 145.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
His 2026 holdings include immigration-detention habeas petitions and other civil matters. Earlier filed cases include patent, insurance, consumer-class, and products-liability litigation. The duration figures are limited to two terminated contested civil matters.
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 | 15 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 165 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 15 | 165 |
| Sep 2025 | 15 | 170 |
| Mar 2025 | 25 | 138 |
| Sep 2024 | 13 | 142 |
| Mar 2024 | 15 | 142 |
| Sep 2023 | 9 | 148 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 177 |
| Sep 2022 | 5 | 173 |
| Mar 2022 | 11 | 178 |
| Sep 2021 | 9 | 189 |
| Mar 2021 | 9 | 109 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 25 |
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 Central District of California, not for Judge Birotte: 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 | 15,190 | 3.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 4,414 | 3.1 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 10,538 | 4.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 103 | 17.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 135 | 25.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 15,190 | 3.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 15,348 | 3.9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 13,583 | 4.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 12,887 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 14,213 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 14,205 | 5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 13,478 | 4.9 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 Birotte with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Birotte, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Birotte's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace