Jean P. Rosenbluth

United States District Court for the Central District of California magistrate 6 signed orders read

How Judge Rosenbluth decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In a benefits appeal she will reverse and remand where the ALJ failed in the duty to fully and fairly develop the record -- for instance by not ordering a consultative examination or seeking clarification when objective findings (here, spinal cord impingement and severe osteoporosis) created an ambiguity the record did not resolve.

“the Commissioner's decision is reversed and this action is remanded for further proceedings.”

Signed rulings

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

Laura G. v. Berryhill
357 F. Supp. 3d 1023 · 2019-01-24
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision is reversed and this action is remanded for further proceedings.”

Gontes v. Astrue
913 F. Supp. 2d 913 · 2012-12-19
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed and this action is dismissed.”

Dominguez v. Colvin
927 F. Supp. 2d 846 · 2013-02-26
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons stated below, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed and this action is dismissed.”

Pete Contreras v. Christopher A. Wray
2:21-cv-09797 · 2022-08-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The Court has made a de novo review of all objections. The Court accepts the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation is accepted. 2. Defendant Pulido's motion to dismiss is granted, and the claims against him are dismissed with prejudice.”

Pete Contreras v. Christopher A. Wray
2:21-cv-09797 · 2023-01-12
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, the other records on file herein, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff's Objection to the R. & R. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted with prejudice.”

Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Denied

“2. Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend, a stay, discovery, and reconsideration are denied.”

Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied
Jazmin Ramirez v. Frank Bisignano
2:25-cv-03196 · 2025-08-29
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 405 days (N = 3).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 170 days (N = 2).

Her consent docket was dominated by Social Security disability appeals (Title II DIWC/863 and Title XVI SSID/864) on which she was the deciding judge under 636(c), sampled across two filing-year cohorts (2013, 2017). She also handled general consent-civil and habeas matters and served as a referral magistrate on district judges' cases (discovery and dispositive R&Rs, including civil-rights dismissal recommendations in cases referred by District Judge James V. Selna). Cases typically reached her after the parties filed cross-briefs in a Joint Stipulation or Joint Submission, which she took under submission without oral argument.

Put Judge Rosenbluth's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Rosenbluth actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Rosenbluth's own signed orders and cites them.