Consuelo B. Marshall

How Judge Marshall rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Position
district
Appointed by
Jimmy Carter (Democratic)
Commissioned
1980-09-30
Education
Los Angeles City College (A.A., 1956); Howard University (A.B., 1958); Howard University School of Law (LL.B., 1961)
Signed orders read
12

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.

“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without leave to amend, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' copyright infringement claims WITH PREJUDICE.”

In the reviewed mortgage-servicing case, she treated a borrower letter as a potentially valid written request where it identified the borrower and account, explained the suspected error, and sought servicing information; including some non-servicing requests did not defeat the claim.

“Even if some of Plaintiffs requests do not relate to servicing, the letter can still be a QWR.”

In the reviewed robocall class-certification ruling, she found that individualized consent issues did not predominate where the proposed class was tied to skip-trace records and the defendant offered no evidence that a class member had consented.

“However, Defendant submits no evidence that any class member in this case consented.”

In the reviewed securities class-certification ruling, criticism of the plaintiff's event study did not establish market inefficiency where the defense expert conducted no competing study and expressed no view that the market was inefficient.

“Gompers, however, did not conduct an independent study demonstrating that the market is inefficient and testified he had no opinion as to whether the market for UTi common stock was efficient.”

In the reviewed farmers' market case, she treated a rule targeting petition and brochure circulation as an invalid content-based speech restriction while rejecting broader constitutional challenges to the market rules.

“The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment insofar as it seeks a determination that the Market Rules' prohibition on ‘[c]irculating an initiative or referendum petition, or circulating advertising brochures’ within the Market is an invalid content-based restriction on speech.”

Procedural preferences

In the reviewed mortgage pleading, she separated curable defects from a legally unavailable accounting claim, allowing amendment of the former while dismissing the latter with prejudice.

“The Court grants with prejudice Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiffs accounting cause of action. The Court denies the remainder of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”

In the reviewed law-firm conflict dispute, she disqualified counsel despite substantial replacement costs because the conflict implicated issues central to the case and no lesser measure would protect the judicial process.

“The Court hereby GRANTS Tate & Lyle’s and Ingredion’s Motion to Disqualify Squire Patton Boggs LLP.”

Signed rulings

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

Cooper-Harris v. United States
965 F. Supp. 2d 1139 · 2013-08-29
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”

Lee v. City of Los Angeles
88 F. Supp. 3d 1140 · 2015-02-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“... DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION”

Retail Digital Network, LLC v. Appelsmith
945 F. Supp. 2d 1119 · 2013-05-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”

Willits v. City of Los Angeles
925 F. Supp. 2d 1089 · 2013-02-25
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT”

Alfred v. Walt Disney Co.
388 F. Supp. 3d 1174 · 2019-05-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without leave to amend, and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' copyright infringement claims WITH PREJUDICE.”

Peviani v. Hostess Brands, Inc.
CV 10-2303 CBM (VBKx) · 2010-11-03
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend;”

Request for judicial notice (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice as to all documents except the product labels for the six (6) Hostess 100 Calorie Packs.”

Wise v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
CV 11-8586 CBM (PJWx) · 2012-03-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The Court grants without prejudice Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiffs negligence, FDCPA, breach of contract, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing causes of action. Should Plaintiff wish to attempt to cure these defects, Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint no later than April 4, 2012. The Court grants with prejudice Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiffs accounting cause of action. The Court denies the remainder of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”

Pendleton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
13-6283-CBM-(RZx) · 2013-12-06
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE with respect to Plaintiff’s request for statutory damages. Defendant’s Motion is otherwise DENIED.”

Western Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.
CV 11-3473 CBM (MANx) · 2015-02-13
Motion to disqualify counsel (defendant) Granted

“The Court hereby GRANTS Tate & Lyle’s and Ingredion’s Motion to Disqualify Squire Patton Boggs LLP.”

Caldera v. American Medical Collection Agency
2:16-cv-00381-CBM-AJWx · 2017-06-27
Class certification (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification.”

Angley v. UTI Worldwide Inc.
2:14-cv-02066-CBM-E · 2018-04-19
Class certification (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.”

Mahgerefteh v. City of Torrance
CV 17-2835 CBM · 2018-08-27
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment insofar as it seeks a determination that the Market Rules' prohibition on ‘[c]irculating an initiative or referendum petition, or circulating advertising brochures’ within the Market is an invalid content-based restriction on speech. The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment insofar as it seeks a determination that other provisions in the Market Rules are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

  • The reviewed contested civil cases filed from 2008 through 2016 include civil-rights and constitutional litigation, intellectual-property disputes, consumer-protection claims, and employment cases.
  • They include Cooper-Harris v. United States, in which Judge Marshall held provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act and Title 38's veterans-benefit definitions unconstitutional; that case ran about 2.1 years from filing to final judgment.

Draft for Judge Marshall with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Marshall, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Marshall's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace