Dolly Maizie Gee
How Judge Gee rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gee
Dolly Maizie Gee is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Gee received a commission on January 4, 2010.
Judge Gee's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gee, 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 ↗
- DMG Initial Standing Order.docx ↗
- DMG - Rule16 Sched Conf Setting Order ↗
- CRIM TRIAL ORDER ↗
- DMG Under Seal Guide to Electronically Filing Under Seal Documents -CIVIL CASES ONLY ↗
- DMG Under Seal Instruction - CRIMINAL CASES ONLY (Two Pages) ↗
- Format Sample Statements of Genuine Disputed Facts ↗
Key rules
Filing
Chambers copies are unnecessary in civil and criminal cases unless the court requests them.
“No chambers copy is required for CIVIL or CRIMINAL cases, except at the specific request of the Court (i.e., please refrain from contacting the Courtroom Deputy Clerk).”
Motions
Clear a hearing date with chambers only for summary judgment or preliminary injunction motions.
“It is not necessary to clear a hearing date with the Courtroom Deputy Clerk prior to filing a motion, except for motions for summary judgment or preliminary injunction.”
Conferences
For a remote appearance request, email the courtroom deputy and copy opposing counsel at least seven days before the hearing.
“email the Courtroom Deputy Clerk and copy opposing counsel at least seven (7) days in advance of the scheduled appearance;”
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 Gee decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Avedisian, Gee held that reported cuts from loose chrome trim did not present the safety concern needed for the omission claim and granted summary judgment for the defendant.
“Those who were injured by the Chrome Defect, however, described minor cuts to their hands.”
In Ontiveros v. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., Gee used a numerical hypothetical to explain how the challenged pay plan could produce minimum wage violations, while leaving whether violations occurred for later decision.
“The hypothetical demonstrates that the PPP was designed in such a way that minimum wage violations could result. The parties have not asked the Court to decide at this juncture whether violations did in fact occur.”
In Forouzan v. BMW of North America, LLC, Gee granted the plaintiff’s motion to retax costs after a jury verdict in his favor.
“In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Retax Costs.”
In an ERISA benefits trial, Gee discounted a medical reviewer’s opinion because it relied on criteria absent from the governing guidelines and did not engage with the treating physician’s recommendation.
“Dr. Misir’s opinion to be unsupported by the Administrative Record.”
In Shen, Gee denied an immigration detention habeas petition after accepting the finding that, on the facts presented, the petitioner had no viable claim to a hearing before detention.
“On the facts presented, the Court agrees with and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Petitioner does not have a viable claim that he had a right to a pre-deprivation hearing before he was taken into custody.”
Procedural preferences
In Totten v. Kellogg Brown & Root, LLC, Gee granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ individual claims.
“Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs individual claims.”
In La Park La Brea A LLC v. Airbnb, Inc., Gee rejected the argument that deciding the Communications Decency Act preemption issue at the pleading stage was premature.
“insofar as Aimco argues that it would be premature for the Court to decide the CDA preemption issue at this stage of the litigation, the Court rejects that argument.”
In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Gee granted leave to amend because the plaintiffs might cure the identified defects by alleging new or different facts.
“Because Plaintiffs may be able to cure the defects identified herein if given the chance to allege new or different facts, the Court GRANTS leave to amend.”
In Lucas R. v. Azar, Gee granted a sealing request after finding it narrowly tailored to material for which compelling reasons had been established.
“The Court concludes that Plaintiffs' request is narrowly tailored to seal only that material for which compelling reasons have been established and GRANTS the Application to Seal 416 .”
In a wage-and-hour class certification ruling, the named plaintiff's standing limited which proposed subclasses could proceed.
“Here, the Court finds that Hoffman does not have standing to raise claims related to two of his proposed subclasses: the on-duty meal period subclass and the recovery period subclass.”
In a removed wage dispute, the court remanded after finding that the plaintiff sought no damages under the family leave claim, leaving the amount in controversy below the threshold.
“Absent damages under the CFRA, the amount in controversy falls well below the threshold amount.”
In a removed vehicle warranty suit, the court denied remand after including the pleaded civil penalties in the amount in controversy.
“Based on the estimated actual damages and civil penalties alone, the amount in controversy well exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.”
In Brown, Gee declined to consider allegations raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s report and granted the city’s dismissal motion with leave to amend.
“The Court declines to consider factual allegations raised for the first time in objections to the Report.”
Cautions
In Bentley v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., Gee denied United’s requests for judicial notice.
“The Court DENIES United's requests for judicial notice for the reasons set forth below.”
In Lucas R. v. Azar, Gee denied part of the defendants’ extension request because they had not shown good cause for the requested relief.
“Finding no good cause for the requested relief, the Court DENIES in part Defendants' EPA.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Having duly considered the parties’ written submissions and oral argument, the Court now GRANTS Defendant’s motion.”
“Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of individual claims, and dismiss class and representative claims, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs individual claims.”
“For the reasons that follow, the motions are hereby granted in part and denied in part.”
“Having duly considered the parties' written submissions, the Court GRANTS Defendants' MSJ.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and DENIES Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. In light of the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court DENIES as moot the motion to strike, motion for preliminary injunction, and motion to expedite discovery.”
“For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Defendants' motion to consolidate cases is DENIED as moot.”
“In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.”
“In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Retax Costs.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:”
“For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“The Court certifies the proposed classes and sub-classes as follows:”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Judge Gee's 2026 calendar is heavily weighted toward immigration-detention habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with ADA access suits and prisoner habeas matters.
- The reviewed 2017-2018 terminations were mostly short procedural dispositions, including screening decisions, serial ADA filings, and habeas dismissals.
- Their durations measure the life of each case, not the time required to decide a contested motion.
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 | 3 |
| 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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 9 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 10 |
| Mar 2024 | 9 | 16 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 14 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 15 |
| Sep 2022 | 20 | 19 |
| Mar 2022 | 17 | 21 |
| Sep 2021 | 15 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 8 | 14 |
| Sep 2020 | 14 | 14 |
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 Gee: 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 Gee with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gee, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gee's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace