John A. Kronstadt

United States District Court for the Central District of California district Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 5 signed orders read

How Judge Kronstadt decides

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

Procedural preferences

Resolves many cross-motions in a single long in-chambers omnibus order and routinely splits dispositive motions granted-in-part / denied-in-part rather than ruling all-or-nothing.

“Chang v. Biosuccess: a single ruling disposed of ten enumerated motions, several of them 'GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART'; Carpenter v. Sikorsky resolved three separate MTDs in one order.”

Cautions

Enforces pleading and procedure strictly: strikes non-compliant amended pleadings (Rule 15(a)(2), Rule 10(b)) and Doe defendants, and requires that motions (e.g. to transfer) be separately and properly filed rather than embedded in an opposition.

“Carpenter: 'That is the not the proper means to bring a motion[;] It must be separately filed.' Murphy: the FAC and underlying Complaint were stricken for failure to comply with Rules 15(a)(2) and 10(b), and DOES 1-100 were STRICKEN.”

Signed rulings

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

Katz v. China Century Dragon Media, Inc.
287 F.R.D. 575 · 2012-12-18
Class certification (plaintiff) Granted in part

“ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DKT. 156)”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS CROSS-CLAIM OF WESTPARK CAPITAL DEFENDANTS AGAINST MALONEBAILEY LLP (DKT. 172)”

Chang v. Biosuccess Biotech Co.
76 F. Supp. 3d 1022 · 2014-12-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“(1) Counter-defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Summary Judgment (Dkt. 205) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted

“(2) Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss the Bio-success Parties' counterclaims (Dkt. 240) is GRANTED, without prejudice ...”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Granted in part

“(3) Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 234) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“(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).”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“(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.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Moot / procedural

“(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.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“(7) Richard's Motion for Summary Judgment on Unpaid Monies (Dkt. 251) is DENIED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“(8) Ben's Motion for Summary Judgment on Unpaid Wages (Dkt. 252) is DENIED.”

Murphy v. American General Life Insurance
74 F. Supp. 3d 1267 · 2015-01-15
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Carpenter v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
101 F. Supp. 3d 911 · 2015-04-27
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“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.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For these reasons, the Motion of the Sikorsky Defendants is GRANTED. [personal jurisdiction]”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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).”

Stanley v. Baca
137 F. Supp. 3d 1192 · 2015-09-15
Motion for review (respondent) Granted

“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 ...”

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.

Put Judge Kronstadt's record to work

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

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