Christina A. Snyder
How Judge Snyder rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Snyder
Christina A. Snyder is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Snyder received a commission on November 10, 1997. Judge Snyder assumed senior status on November 23, 2016.
Judge Snyder's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Snyder, 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.
Key rules
Filing
The Court requires that mandatory copies of electronically filed documents be delivered to the judge's mail box outside the Clerk's Office on the 4th floor of the Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez United States Courthouse, no later than 12:00 p.m. on the first court day following the date when the documents are required filed.
“The Court requires that mandatory copies of electronically filed documents be delivered to the judge's mail box outside the Clerk's Office on the 4th floor of the Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez United States Courthouse, no later than 12:00 p.m. on the first court day following the date when the documents are required filed.”
Motions
Motions shall be heard on each Monday of the month at 10:00 a.m., unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
“Motions shall be heard on each Monday of the month at 10:00 a.m., unless otherwise ordered by the Court.”
Conferences
If counsel has received a "Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program" (form ADR-08), the Court will presumptively refer the case to the Court Mediation Panel or to private mediation at the time of the initial scheduling conference.
“If counsel has received a ‘Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program’ (form ADR-08), the Court will presumptively refer the case to the Court Mediation Panel or to private mediation at the time of the initial scheduling conference.”
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 Snyder decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hootkins v. Napolitano, Snyder granted partial summary judgment against some plaintiffs outside the Ninth Circuit while denying the defendants’ motion as to plaintiffs within the circuit under the governing law for each group.
“ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS OUTSIDE THE NINTH CIRCUIT[;] DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFFS IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT”
In the reviewed trade-dress dispute, she required evidence that a descriptive package had acquired secondary meaning and entered judgment when the plaintiff offered none.
“there is no evidence proffered to enable the Court to find a triable issue of fact as to whether the Kim Seng package has acquired a secondary meaning.”
In the reviewed county-seal case, she assessed the challenged cross from the perspective of an informed observer familiar with the seal's history and the public controversy surrounding removal and restoration.
“an informed and reasonable observer familiar with the history surrounding the County’s use of a Latin cross on its seal — and the County’s controversial removal of the cross in 2004 — would find its recent effort to reintroduce a cross to the seal as favoring one set of religious beliefs over another.”
Procedural preferences
In Maddock v. KB Home, Snyder addressed three pending motions in one order, granting the defendant summary judgment while denying the plaintiff’s motions to amend and compel arbitration.
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (filed 09/12/07) ... CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.”
In Klausen v. Warner Bros. Television, Snyder held that resolving the plaintiff’s state employment claims did not require interpreting his collective bargaining agreements, so Section 301 did not preempt those claims.
“Accordingly, the Court finds that resolution of plaintiffs FEHA claims does not require a court to interpret the terms and provisions of a CBA and therefore plaintiffs claims are not preempted under section 301 of the LMRA.”
In the reviewed patent pleading, she denied a more-definite-statement request where the complaint gave enough notice to answer and the additional product-level detail could be developed through discovery.
“The FAC is not so vague that defendants cannot prepare a responsive pleading, and the detail defendants seek is obtainable through discovery.”
In the reviewed music-copyright dispute, she resolved authorship, co-ownership, and standing at summary judgment but left the scope of the foreign-law license for trial because the agreements and expert evidence supported competing interpretations.
“The Court concludes that a triable question of fact otherwise exists with respect to the scope of the grant.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (filed 09/12/07) ... CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.”
“ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT (filed 09/18/07)”
“ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION (filed 09/24/07)”
“ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ALL PLAINTIFFS OUTSIDE THE NINTH CIRCUIT[;] DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFFS IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT”
“AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ... CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.”
“DEATH PENALTY CASE ORDER GRANTING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.”
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs motion to remand to state court.”
“Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue is hereby GRANTED.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs motion to remand.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Space Chariot’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against Deep Vapes.”
“The Court therefore GRANTS UL’s motion for partial summary judgment as against Space Chariot.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement.”
“In light of the foregoing, Kim Seng’s motion is DENIED.”
“J & A’s motion is GRANTED in its entirety.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES plaintiffs motion to exclude testimony of Ahmed Y. Zohny.”
“The Court GRANTS plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the following issues: (1) that Baligh Hamdy authored and owned the copyright in the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ musical composition; (2) that plaintiff Osama Fahmy is a Hamdy heir, and a co-owner of the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ copyright; (3) that plaintiff Osama Fahmy has standing to bring claims that defendants’ works infringed the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ copyright. The Court DENIES plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the following issue, which it concludes present triable issues of fact for the jury: that defendants do not have a grant of permission to make derivative works from the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ musical composition.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction is hereby GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed recent assignments are dominated by pending immigration-detainee habeas petitions and pro se filings. Reviewed cases filed in 2022 include civil-rights, prisoner civil-rights, habeas, and contract matters, several of which ended quickly through screening dismissals. Duration figures are limited to terminated cases in the reviewed set.
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 | 18 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 18 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 13 | 23 |
| Sep 2024 | 14 | 24 |
| Mar 2024 | 15 | 24 |
| Sep 2023 | 12 | 19 |
| Mar 2023 | 9 | 17 |
| Sep 2022 | 15 | 20 |
| Mar 2022 | 32 | 17 |
| Sep 2021 | 23 | 20 |
| Mar 2021 | 31 | 17 |
| Sep 2020 | 21 | 10 |
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 Snyder: 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 Snyder with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Snyder, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Snyder's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace