John A. Kronstadt
How Judge Kronstadt rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kronstadt
John Arnold Kronstadt is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Kronstadt received a commission on April 14, 2011. Judge Kronstadt assumed senior status on April 1, 2022.
Judge Kronstadt's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kronstadt, 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 ↗
- Civil Standing Order (Revised 2025.04.07) ↗
- Criminal Standing Order (Revised 2023.11.20) ↗
- Schedule A to Order Setting Rule 16(b) 26(f) Scheduling Conference (Fillable) ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Do not call or email about the status of a motion, stipulation, or proposed order.
“Please do not inquire by phone, or email regarding the status of a motion, stipulation, or proposed order.”
Filing
Provide paper copies only for materials absent from the case’s electronic docket.
“The Court only requires copies of materials that have not been filed on the electronic docket for this case (e.g., CD-ROMs, DVDs, USB drives, documents electronically filed in other cases or other districts).”
Discovery
Calendar discovery motions before the magistrate judge.
“Discovery Motions. All discovery motions are to be calendared before the Magistrate Judge.”
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 Kronstadt decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In a vehicle-warranty case, assessed the amount in controversy from estimated actual damages and civil penalties before denying remand.
“Because Defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is diversity of citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, there is subject matter jurisdiction over this action.”
In a removed vehicle warranty case, the court denied remand after accounting for the lease payments and mileage offset, then including the pleaded maximum statutory penalty in the amount in controversy.
“the alleged actual damages and civil penalties in controversy total approximately $91,722.36.”
Cautions
In one employment case, declined supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal-preempted claims, then remanded the remaining state-law claims.
“Therefore, the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action are REMANDED to the Los Angeles Superior Court”
In a case involving an LLC added after removal, the court remanded after the removing defendants could not identify all members needed to establish diversity jurisdiction.
“Because doubt remains as to whether complete diversity of citizenship is satisfied,”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DKT. 156)”
“AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CROSS-CLAIM OF WESTPARK CAPITAL DEFENDANTS AGAINST MALONEBAILEY LLP (DKT. 172)”
“(1) Counter-defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Summary Judgment (Dkt. 205) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“(2) Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss the Bio-success Parties' counterclaims (Dkt. 240) is GRANTED, without prejudice ...”
“(3) Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 234) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“(4) The motion for partial summary judgment of the Biosuccess Parties, which seeks a declaration that Richard could not unilaterally terminate the agreement assigning the '814 Patent ... is DENIED (Dkt. 248).”
“(5) The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of the Biosuccess Parties with respect to the Labor Claims of Ben and Richard (Dkt. 249) is GRANTED to the extent they are premised upon sections 558 and 1174, and is DENIED to the extent they are premised on sections 201, 203, 218.5, and 226.”
“(6) The Motion to Dismiss Richard's Declaratory Relief Claim in his Complaint re Inventorship or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 250) is MOOT.”
“(7) Richard's Motion for Summary Judgment on Unpaid Monies (Dkt. 251) is DENIED.”
“(8) Ben's Motion for Summary Judgment on Unpaid Wages (Dkt. 252) is DENIED.”
“Shane Murphy is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e). The Motion is GRANTED, with leave to amend, as to defendants AGL and AIG.”
“the Motions of the BAE and Sikorsky Defendants are GRANTED due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. These parties are dismissed from this action, without prejudice to the filing of a separate action in a proper forum.”
“For these reasons, the Motion of the Sikorsky Defendants is GRANTED.”
“The Prototype Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is DENIED, without prejudice, as to whether this action presents a political question. The Motion is GRANTED without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint that adequately states a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).”
“The Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Motion is GRANTED; (2) the Magistrate Judge's Order of February 19, 2015 is VACATED; (3) the Petition is recharacterized as one falling under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ...”
“For the reasons stated in this Order, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Two subclasses are certified.”
“For the reasons stated in this Order, the Motion is GRANTED , without prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated in this Order, the Forum Non Conveniens Motion is DENIED .”
“The 12(b)(6) Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART . It is GRANTED as to the sixth and seventh causes of action, and those causes of action are DISMISSED without prejudice but without leave to amend.”
“The Motion to Stay is DENIED .”
“For the reasons stated in this Order, the Motion is DENIED.”
“The Motion is DENIED as to the request that this entire action be remanded. The Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Motion is GRANTED as to the request that this Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.”
“For the reasons stated in this Order, the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed 2026 assignments are dominated by pending alien-detainee habeas petitions, with additional ADA Title III access suits, immigration mandamus matters, and a foreclosure case.
- Older resolved matters from 2010 through 2020 include ADA Title III, employment, contract, foreclosure, and patent disputes; many ended through settlement or voluntary dismissal. Duration figures are limited to terminated cases in the reviewed set.
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 | 14 |
| 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 | 25 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 14 | 25 |
| Sep 2025 | 44 | 25 |
| Mar 2025 | 43 | 34 |
| Sep 2024 | 52 | 45 |
| Mar 2024 | 71 | 56 |
| Sep 2023 | 132 | 69 |
| Mar 2023 | 171 | 62 |
| Sep 2022 | 188 | 44 |
| Mar 2022 | 195 | 37 |
| Sep 2021 | 168 | 27 |
| Mar 2021 | 139 | 26 |
| Sep 2020 | 71 | 22 |
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 Kronstadt: 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 Kronstadt with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kronstadt, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kronstadt's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace