David O. Carter

How Judge Carter rules, drawn from 25 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
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1998-10-22
Education
University of California, Los Angeles (B.A., 1967); University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law (J.D., 1972)
Signed orders read
25

Signed rulings

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

Petersen v. Allstate Indemnity Co.
8:11-cv-01958 · 2012-03-12
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Motion.”

Perea v. Walgreen Co.
8:12-cv-01539 · 2013-04-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), but GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under 12(b)(6).”

Nguyen v. Radient Pharmaceuticals Corp.
8:11-cv-00406 · 2013-05-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the Court DENIES Radient’s Motion and DENIES MacLellan & Ariura’s Motion in part and GRANTS that Motion in part, as to Section 20(a) liability for Ariura only.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“DENIES MacLellan & Ariura’s Motion in part and GRANTS that Motion in part, as to Section 20(a) liability for Ariura only.”

Black v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co.
8:13-cv-00111 · 2013-10-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2) and DISMISSES Plaintiffs case.”

Shorter v. Baca
2:13-cv-07337 · 2015-04-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion.”

Cleavenger v. University of Oregon
6:13-cv-01908 · 2015-05-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Plaintiff's state law claims against all Defendants are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against UO and all individual Defendants sued in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, because they are not persons subject to suit under § 1983. ... Plaintiff's § 1983 claim premised on procedural due process violations regarding procedures afforded him upon his dismissal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, as the facts alleged reveal that he received all procedures to which he was legally entitled.”

Harris v. Duc
2:06-cv-02138 · 2011-05-02
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant Duc's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Duc are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.”

Lowe v. Department of Corrections of the State of California
2:06-cv-01623 · 2009-09-21
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Granted

“Consequently, though the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, the Court again GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted
Luna v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport, Inc.
8:17-cv-00990 · 2018-06-13
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Chung Hou Hsiao v. Hazuda
8:14-cv-00728 · 2015-04-06
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to close this case.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Rush v. Denco Enterprises, Inc.
5:11-cv-00030 · 2012-04-24
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED to the extent of Plaintiffs exit claim. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the entry claim is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Masonek v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
8:09-cv-01048 · 2012-01-31
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the aforementioned reasons, the Motions to Dismiss are hereby GRANTED. The Third-Party Complaint of Wells Fargo is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Third-Party Defendants Cullum & Burks, NSC, SAI, SAFC, Ameriprise, and Capital Financial. The equitable indemnity claim in the Amended Third-Party Complaint of BNYM is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Third-Party Defendants Cullum & Burks, NSC, SAI, Capital Financial, and Signature Financial. The contribution claim in the Amended Third-Party Complaint of BNYM is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Third-Party Defendants Cullum & Burks, NSC, SAI, SAFC, Capital Financial, and Signature Financial.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

His 2026 civil intake includes immigration-detention habeas petitions, employment, medical-products, prisoner, and state-custody matters. Earlier filed cases include securities and consumer class actions, insurance disputes, civil-rights litigation, and the multi-year Los Angeles homelessness case. The duration figures are limited to two terminated contested civil matters.

Draft for Judge Carter with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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