George H. Wu
How Judge Wu rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wu
George H. Wu is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Wu received a commission on April 17, 2007. Judge Wu assumed senior status on November 3, 2023.
Judge Wu's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wu, 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 ↗
- Final Pretrial Order ↗
- GW UNDER SEAL CRIMINAL PILOT PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ↗
- Order Regarding Discovery on Criminal Cases ↗
- Standing Order Re Summary Judgment Motions ↗
Key rules
Filing
Courtesy copies are currently unnecessary.
“Courtesy copies are not required at this time”
Motions
Civil motions are heard Mondays and Thursdays at 8:30 a.m.
“Civil motions are heard on: Monday and Thursday at 8:30 a.m.:”
Motions
Submit evidentiary objections related to summary judgment in a separate document titled “Request for Evidentiary Ruling on Specified Objections.”
“Any evidentiary objections to materials filed in connection with summary judgment motions (for which a party desires the Court to specifically make a ruling) shall be delineated in a separate document (or documents) entitled ‘Request for Evidentiary Ruling on Specified Objections.’”
Sealing
For criminal under-seal filings, email proposed documents to chambers.
“CRIMINAL UNDER SEAL FILINGS ONLY: All proposed documents related to under seal filings must be submitted via e-mail to the Judge’s Chambers e-mail at [email protected] (link sends e-mail).”
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 Wu decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Rule 29(c) motion for judgment of acquittal Wu held that an intentional breach of a website's terms of service, without more, is not a misdemeanor Computer Fraud and Abuse Act violation, and that reading the statute otherwise would render it unconstitutionally vague (the Lori Drew MySpace prosecution).
“The pivotal issue herein is whether basing a CFAA misdemeanor violation as per 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) and 1030(c)(2)(A) upon the conscious violation of a website’s terms of service runs afoul of the void-for-vagueness doctrine. This Court concludes that it does primarily because of the absence of minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement, but also because of actual notice deficiencies.”
In McRO, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, Wu concluded that specified automated-animation patent claims were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and stated that he would grant the defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court would GRANT the Motion, and hold '576 Patent claims 1, 7-9, and 13, and '278 Patent claims 1-4, 6, 9, 13, and 15-17 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
In the reviewed insurance remand, he treated the plaintiffs’ alleged loss as arising when a fire made the policy’s coverage shortfall compensable, rather than when an earlier square-footage error might have been discovered.
“There was no compensable damage or injury under the Lavias’ policy with Standard Fire until the January 2025 fire, at the earliest.”
Procedural preferences
In Tabaddor v. Holder, Wu adopted his circulated tentative ruling as the final ruling after hearing argument and granted the defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part.
“The Tentative circulated and attached hereto, is adopted as the Court's Final Ruling. Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s motion ... is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court would GRANT the Motion, and hold '576 Patent claims 1, 7-9, and 13, and '278 Patent claims 1-4, 6, 9, 13, and 15-17 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
“The Tentative circulated and attached hereto, is adopted as the Court's Final Ruling. Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.”
“Based on the foregoing discussion, the Court would deny the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs claims against Vega and as to his claim for falsification of evidence as to Stangeland, and grant it as to his other claims against Stangeland.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the SAC is DENIED to the extent described herein.”
“For the reasons stated on the record, the Cross-Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss (filed 04/29/08) is granted. The cross claim is hereby dismissed and this action is hereby remanded back to State Court for all further proceedings.”
“Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“The Court GRANTS IN PART/DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Court signs the proposed order.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) is granted.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Deem Matters Admitted is denied.”
“The matter is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- A windowed sample of Judge Wu's contested civil cases filed from 2009 through 2015 shows a docket weighted toward complex intellectual-property and commercial litigation: copyright and trademark infringement, patent disputes, securities fraud, consumer class actions, and civil-rights claims.
- He handles high-profile technology and entertainment matters, including the Fox Television copyright suit against the 'Aereokiller' online-streaming service.
- The sampled Fox copyright case ran roughly 4.8 years from filing to termination, while a film-rights copyright dispute ran just over two years.
- He remains in the active rotation despite 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 | 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 | 21 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 21 |
| Sep 2025 | 12 | 16 |
| Mar 2025 | 24 | 19 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 11 |
| Mar 2023 | 6 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 15 |
| Mar 2022 | 12 | 18 |
| Sep 2021 | 23 | 18 |
| Mar 2021 | 27 | 14 |
| Sep 2020 | 28 | 16 |
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 Wu: 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 Wu with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wu, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wu's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace