Atsushi Wallace Tashima

How Judge Tashima rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Tashima no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Position
district
Status
Retired 1996
Served
1980–1996
Appointed by
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Commissioned
1980-06-30
Education
University of California, Los Angeles (B.A., 1958); Harvard Law School (LL.B., 1961)
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Tashima decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Cautions

He declined summary judgment where the requested ruling depended on contested inferences about concealment, knowledge, and diligence.

“What inferences properly to draw from the facts are factual issues. Since reasonable jurors could resolve these issues in plaintiffs’ favor, the motion must be denied.”

Where policy language was unambiguous, Tashima applied its ordinary meaning rather than importing a broader state-law gloss.

“The court concludes that the policy exclusion is not necessarily coextensive with the statutory language, and should be accorded its plain meaning; there is no ambiguity to resolve.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

American Motorcyclist Association v. Watt
· 1982-07-01
Motion for partial summary judgment (environmental plaintiffs) Granted

“After hearing argument and reviewing the extensive record pertinent to these motions, I have concluded, for the reasons hereinafter stated, that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment, and that limited declaratory and injunctive relief should be granted.”

California Chamber of Commerce v. Simpson
· 1985-01-08
Motions to dismiss (defendant Labor Commissioner) Denied

“I, therefore, conclude that CCC has associational standing to sue under ERISA.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted and a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction in plaintiff’s favor shall be entered accordingly.”

Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
· 1988-07-19
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff communications provider) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, a preliminary injunction shall issue prohibiting enforcement of § 223(b) as to any communication alleged to be ‘indecent.’ The motion for a preliminary injunction is otherwise denied.”

Finley v. National Endowment for the Arts
· 1992-06-09
Judgment on the pleadings (defendants) Granted in part

“For all of the foregoing reasons, the court denies defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, except with respect to plaintiffs’ Second Claim.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted

“Further, the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Sixth Claim, on the grounds that the ‘decency’ clause of 20 U.S.C. § 954(d)(1), on its face, is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment and is overbroad under the First Amendment.”

Buttons v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
· 1994-03-14
Motion for leave to amend and remand (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff’s application for leave to file amended complaint and to remand case to state court is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (defendants) Granted

“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is treated as a motion for summary judgment and is GRANTED.”

Nottingham, Ltd. v. United States
· 1989-12-21
Motions to dismiss (United States) Denied

“The motion to dismiss is DENIED.”

Nottingham, Ltd. v. United States
· 1990-08-08
Motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (United States) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
· 1987-09-01
Motion for summary adjudication (defendant air carrier) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED that summary judgment shall be entered consistent with this Memorandum Order.”

Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Laboratories, Inc.
· 1987-01-26
Rule 60b motion (defendant Bentley Laboratories) Denied

“IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment based on Shiley’s fraud is DENIED.”

McEldowney v. National Conference of Bar Examiners
· 1993-11-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant testing organization) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, the complaint fails to state a claim as to either of its claims for relief. As indicated by the discussion above, the deficiencies in the complaint are not such as to be curable by amendment. Thus, leave to amend would be futile and is, therefore, denied.”

Morganstein v. Esber
· 1991-07-15
Motion for attorneys fees (class counsel) Granted in part

“IT IS ORDERED that class counsel are awarded $2,595,728.08 as reasonable attorneys’ fees and $417,087.67 as costs, together with interest accrued thereon from February 19, 1991, at the rate actually earned by the Settlement Fund, to the date of distribution, from the Settlement Fund in this action.”

Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Catto
· 1993-03-01
Motion for attorneys fees (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the EAJA plaintiffs shall recover of the United States reasonable attorneys’ fees in the sum of $159,419.96, plus reasonable costs and expenses in the sum of $15,620.37, for a total award of fees and expenses of $175,040.33.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 2775 days (N = 20).

A 20-case historical metadata slice filed from 1982 through 1988 contains 20 terminated cases. Securities and tax matters were the largest identified categories, but this archival slice does not establish the distribution of Tashima's full district-era caseload.

A historical record

Judge Tashima 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.