Jesus G. Bernal
How Judge Bernal rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bernal
Jesus Gilberto Bernal is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Bernal received a commission on December 12, 2012.
Judge Bernal's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bernal, 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 ↗
- Bernal Standing Order_Revised 7.16.26.pdf ↗
- CIVIL TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER_Redacted-1 ↗
- ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE_Redacted ↗
Key rules
Filing
Email proposed orders in Word format to the judge’s chambers address.
“Proposed orders are required to be emailed in Word format to [email protected].”
Discovery
Calendar discovery motions before the magistrate judge.
“Discovery motions are to be calendared before the Magistrate Judge.”
Conferences
Submit continuance and special requests with a stipulation and proposed order at least one week in advance.
“Continuances and special requests must be approved by the Court, and will be granted only upon a showing of good cause. Counsel must make such requests in pleading form by submitting a stipulation and a proposed order to the clerk's office at least one week in advance. Refer to Local Rules 7-1 and 7-11 for proper format.”
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 Bernal decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In AFMS LLC v. United Parcel Service Co., Bernal granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions in an antitrust suit.
“the Court GRANTS the motions.”
Procedural preferences
In McInteer v. Ashley Distribution Services, Ltd., Bernal granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ summary judgment motion in an employment suit.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.”
In a removed employment suit, Bernal remanded after treating two described Doe managers as California citizens. The removing defendants had offered only a bare assertion that no claim could lie against them, which did not establish fraudulent joinder.
“Such a bare assertion falls well short of the Defendants’ burden to establish fraudulent joinder.”
In an unopposed immigration habeas case, the court ordered release after observing that the government supplied no evidence or argument supporting continued detention.
“Because Respondents elected not to respond to the Petition, the record is devoid of any evidence or argument of a significant government interest in detaining Petitioner.”
Cautions
In Jackson v. County of San Bernardino, Bernal denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion in an excessive force suit.
“the Court DENIES the motion.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s Motion and DENIES Plaintiffs Motion.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.”
“Proceedings: Order (1) GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Dismiss the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Causes of Action from First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 30);”
“1) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs Case-Specific Experts;”
“4) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion, (Dkt. No. 31):”
“the Court GRANTS the DD Motion and DISMISSES the FAC as to DD WITH LEAVE TO AMEND”
“DENIES the AD Motion, DENIES the Clem Motion”
“DENIES the Clem Motion”
“the Court GRANTS the DD Motion and DISMISSES the FAC as to DD WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND”
“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the AD Motion and DISMISSES the conspiracy claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The bounded 2026 intake reviewed here includes immigration detention petitions, consumer claims, and other civil matters still pending.
- Looking back to terminated contested cases reveals two False Claims Act matters against dermatology practices, plus employment, civil-rights, antitrust, and mortgage disputes.
- The two recorded case durations come from the dermatology matters and are not a general caseload denominator.
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 | 9 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 11 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 9 | 11 |
| Sep 2025 | 23 | 11 |
| Mar 2025 | 15 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 7 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 15 |
| Sep 2023 | 6 | 24 |
| Mar 2023 | 16 | 29 |
| Sep 2022 | 41 | 24 |
| Mar 2022 | 37 | 26 |
| Sep 2021 | 18 | 31 |
| Mar 2021 | 23 | 26 |
| Sep 2020 | 15 | 15 |
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 Bernal: 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 Bernal with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bernal, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bernal's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace