Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha
How Judge Aenlle-Rocha rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Aenlle-Rocha
Fernando Lazaro Aenlle-Rocha is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Aenlle-Rocha received a commission on December 22, 2020.
Judge Aenlle-Rocha's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Aenlle-Rocha, 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 ↗
- Criminal Standing Order (10-1-24) ↗
- Civil Standing Order (2-1-25) ↗
- Order Setting Scheduling Conference (2-1-25) ↗
- Civil Scheduling Worksheets ↗
- Civil Trial Order - Standard (10-1-24) ↗
- Civil Trial Order - Class Action (10-1-24) ↗
- Civil Trial Order - Patent (10-1-24) ↗
- Civil Trial Order - FOIA (10-1-24) ↗
- Civil Trial Order - ERISA (10-1-24) ↗
- [Proposed] Order Template (10-1-24) ↗
- Joint Proposed FPTC Order Template (8-9-23) ↗
- Witness List Template (8-9-23) ↗
- Joint Exhibit List Template (8-9-23) ↗
- Jury Questionnaire (4-26-22) ↗
Key rules
Motions
Clear a hearing date with the courtroom deputy 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.”
Motions
Notice, serve, and file Rule 56 motions at least 35 days before the hearing.
“Motions made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 must be noticed, served, and filed no later than thirty-five (35) days before the hearing date so the opposing party has at least fourteen (14) days to oppose.”
Discovery
Calendar discovery motions and stipulations, including protective orders, before the assigned magistrate judge.
“All discovery motions and stipulations, including those relating to protective orders, are to be calendared before the Magistrate Judge whose initials appear in parentheses after the case number.”
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 Aenlle-Rocha decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Janice Fox v. Ultimate Action LLC, Aenlle-Rocha declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remanded the action to Los Angeles Superior Court.
“ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Having reviewed the parties' joint status report ... the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3) and REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles Superior Court without ruling on the Second Motion to Dismiss. ... Case Terminated. Made JS-6”
In Janice Fox v. Ultimate Action LLC, Aenlle-Rocha denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot after the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
“MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: ORDER FOR THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 9 AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 7 AS MOOT. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 15, removing the 11th cause of action from the operative complaint.”
In a removed class action, he assessed jurisdiction from the operative California-citizen class rather than earlier dismissed complaints and remanded after finding no minimal diversity under CAFA.
“minimal diversity is absent, and the court lacks jurisdiction under CAFA.”
In Garcia v. Don Chente Investments, the court weighed the Eitel factors and found they favored default judgment on an ADA parking-access claim.
“The court finds that the Eitel factors favor entering default judgment for”
Cautions
In one immigration-detention case, Aenlle-Rocha ordered a bond hearing but denied immediate release and declined to put a clear-and-convincing burden on the government for the initial hearing, distinguishing cases involving people previously inspected and released. The petition was later dismissed as moot after release on bond.
“The court, therefore, OVERRULES Petitioner’s second objection and DENIES”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. Having reviewed the parties' joint status report ... the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(c)(3) and REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles Superior Court without ruling on the Second Motion to Dismiss. ... Case Terminated. Made JS-6”
“MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: ORDER FOR THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND 9 AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 7 AS MOOT. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 15, removing the 11th cause of action from the operative complaint.”
“Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Petition as to Claim One, DISMISSES the remaining claims without prejudice, and ORDERS Respondents to release Petitioner Saul Antonio Ramirez Orellana (A# 246-061-835) unless he is provided, within seven (7) days of the docketing of this Order, an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), at which the government will bear the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a flight risk or is a danger to the public.”
“The court, therefore, GRANTS in part the Petition and ORDERS as follows:”
“Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 2) is DENIED as moot.”
“DENIES the Petition without prejudice.”
The court ordered the plaintiff to explain why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution after a clerk's entry of default. The order did not decide a motion or dismiss the case; it says, 'the court ORDERS Plaintiff to Show Cause' and warns that a later dismissal may follow.
“the court GRANTS the Application in part”
“DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 7 1) as moot and CLOSES the action administratively.”
“the court GRANTS count 12 1 of the Petition”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Judge Aenlle-Rocha's reviewed civil docket is weighted toward sealed False Claims Act matters that end voluntarily after the United States declines to intervene, together with removed state-law cases that are remanded or settle. He also carries a federal criminal calendar, and his 2026 intake includes the district's increase in immigration-detention habeas petitions.
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 | 29 |
| 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 | 18 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 29 | 18 |
| Sep 2025 | 24 | 13 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 16 |
| Mar 2024 | 7 | 22 |
| Sep 2023 | 49 | 22 |
| Mar 2023 | 72 | 16 |
| Sep 2022 | 68 | 13 |
| Mar 2022 | 49 | 12 |
| Sep 2021 | 17 | 15 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 12 |
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 Aenlle-Rocha: 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 Aenlle-Rocha with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Aenlle-Rocha, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Aenlle-Rocha's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace