Consuelo B. Marshall
How Judge Marshall rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Marshall
Consuelo Bland Marshall is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter, Judge Marshall received a commission on September 30, 1980. Judge Marshall assumed senior status on October 24, 2005.
Judge Marshall's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Marshall, 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
ALL electronic filed documents shall be delivered to the Courtroom Deputy by placing them in the courtesy copy boxes next to the Customer Service Windows on the 4th Floor at the FIRST STREET COURTHOUSE, 350 W. 1st Street, by 12 noon the next business day and should be stamped "MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY".
“ALL electronic filed documents shall be delivered to the Courtroom Deputy by placing them in the courtesy copy boxes next to the Customer Service Windows on the 4th Floor at the FIRST STREET COURTHOUSE, 350 W. 1st Street, by 12 noon the next business day and should be stamped ‘MANDATORY CHAMBERS COPY’.”
Motions
Ex parte applications ordinarily remain submitted until the court orders otherwise.
“Ex Parte Application shall stand submitted until further order of Court.”
Sealing
An application to seal must explain the grounds for restricting public access and say whether anyone opposes it.
“provide a declaration ‘establishing good cause or demonstrating compelling reasons why the strong presumption of public access in civil cases should be overcome, with citations to the applicable legal standard’, and provide/inform the Court whether anyone opposes the application to seal.”
Trial
Before trial, give the courtroom deputy three clean copies each of the witness list and joint exhibit list, without electronic filing headers.
“Other: The parties shall come to Court fully prepared, with (3) three clean copies of their Witness Lists and (3) three clean copies of the Joint Exhibit List, with NO CM/ECF generated header at the top of each page, and all which shall be given to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk before the commencement of trial.”
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 Marshall decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Alfred v. Walt Disney Co., Marshall dismissed the screenplay copyright claims with prejudice after comparing the works under the objective extrinsic test and finding no substantial similarity in protectable expression.
“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.”
In the reviewed website-tracking case, specific allegations identifying third parties and the categories of information allegedly transmitted were enough to preserve the plaintiff’s fraud claim at the pleading stage.
“pleads what alleged data is being sent to whom for Plaintiff’s fraud claim.”
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 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.”
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.
“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.”
“GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend;”
“GRANTS Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice as to all documents except the product labels for the six (6) Hostess 100 Calorie Packs.”
“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.”
“Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE with respect to Plaintiff’s request for statutory damages. Defendant’s Motion is otherwise DENIED.”
“The Court hereby GRANTS Tate & Lyle’s and Ingredion’s Motion to Disqualify Squire Patton Boggs LLP.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.”
“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.
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 | 6 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 6 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 7 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 7 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 13 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 11 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 1 |
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 Marshall: 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 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