Consuelo B. Marshall
How Judge Marshall decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In screenplay/film copyright disputes she resolves substantial similarity on a 12(b)(6) motion by applying the objective extrinsic test element-by-element (plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, sequence) and filtering out unprotectable scenes-a-faire and generic stock elements; a lack of extrinsic similarity is fatal as a matter of law.
“Alfred v. Disney: 'Analyzing the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events ..., the Court finds the parties' works are not substantially similar as a matter of law under the extrinsic test.'”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 5 |
Granted: 4Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION”
“... DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION”
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without leave to amend, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' copyright infringement claims WITH PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample from search_dockets(assigned_judge='Consuelo Bland Marshall'). Senior since 2005 (and former Chief Judge 2001-05), Marshall still draws current intake: the 2026 sample mixes prisoner civil-rights / habeas (multiple Roderick Washington dockets; Alves v. Warden; Macklin v. California), a 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Gorg v. United States), antitrust (Malm, Inc. v. CoStar Group, '410 Anti-Trust'), and employment / civil-rights (Mulligan v. LAUSD '440 Civil Rights: Other'; Doss v. City of Los Angeles). All sampled dockets are pending; no terminated dockets surfaced, so no case durations are recorded.