Dale S. Fischer
How Judge Fischer rules, drawn from 13 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Fischer
Dale S. Fischer is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Fischer received a commission on November 5, 2003. Judge Fischer assumed senior status on May 1, 2024.
Judge Fischer's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Fischer, 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.
- Judge's Procedures and Schedules ↗
- 2021 ORDER RE REQUIREMENTS FOR FEE MOTION ↗
- CR STANDING ORDER 4.20.20 ↗
- JUDGE'S STANDING ORDER 06-20 ↗
- ORDER RE COURT TRIAL.06-20 ↗
- ORDER RE FORMAT OF TIME AND EXPENSE RECORDS ↗
- ORDER RE JURY TRIAL.06-20 ↗
- ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ↗
- ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 06-20 ↗
- UNDER SEAL CRIMINAL PILOT PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ↗
Key rules
Filing
Ensure mandatory chambers copies arrive by noon the day after filing.
“Mandatory Chambers Copies of all filed papers must be received by the Court no later than noon the day after filing. No deliveries will be accepted that require a signature.”
Motions
Motion dates need not be cleared with the courtroom deputy before filing.
“It is not necessary to clear a motion date with the Courtroom Deputy Clerk (CRD) before filing the motion.”
Discovery
Calendar discovery motions and stipulations before the assigned magistrate judge.
“All discovery motions and stipulations, including those relating to protective orders, are to be calendared before the assigned magistrate judge.”
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 Fischer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Kisliuk v. ADT Security Services, Fischer decided the motion without oral argument and denied the request to dismiss or strike class allegations as premature before discovery.
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss or strike Plaintiffs class allegations is premature.”
Grants a motion to dismiss in part and denies it in part, resolving a consolidated complaint claim by claim.
“GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' Motions to Dismiss ... For the reasons given below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Cautions
In Kandel v. Brother International Corp., Fischer denied certification of a proposed printer-purchaser class because the named plaintiffs failed Rule 23 typicality and adequacy of representation.
“Because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the typicality and adequacy of representation requirements of Rule 23, it does not certify the class and does not discuss the other aspects of Rule 23 in depth.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Order DENYING Defendant's Motion To Dismiss and/or Strike Class Allegations and To Dismiss Plaintiffs Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief ... For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion.”
“GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' Motions to Dismiss ... For the reasons given below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order DENYING Motion for Class Certification (Docket No. 158) DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. s 1983. ... Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs claims under state law.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“Order DENYING Claimants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ... Having considered the submissions of the parties and having heard oral argument, the Court DENIES Claimants' Motion.”
“The Court REJECTS the Bankruptcy Court's R & R and DENIES the Trustee's Motion for Summary Adjudication.”
“The Court STRIKES Defendants' Reply.”
“Rund's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
“Defendants' motion to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court of adversary proceeding No. 12-02424 ER is GRANTED.”
“HCT's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed cases filed in 2021 are weighted toward government enforcement, including False Claims Act matters and federal criminal prosecutions, with additional media and contract disputes. Most concluded in 2024 around Judge Fischer's transition to senior status.
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 | 10 |
| 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 | 19 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 10 | 19 |
| Sep 2025 | 6 | 23 |
| Mar 2025 | 7 | 20 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 19 |
| Mar 2024 | 9 | 26 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 33 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 25 |
| Sep 2022 | 9 | 31 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 33 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 33 |
| Mar 2021 | 13 | 24 |
| Sep 2020 | 9 | 23 |
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 Fischer: 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 Fischer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Fischer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Fischer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace