John A. Kronstadt
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.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 8 |
Granted: 5Granted in part: 3 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 5 |
Granted in part: 1Denied: 3Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Class certification N = 1 |
Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for review N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
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. [personal jurisdiction]”
“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 ...”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample from search_dockets(assigned_judge='John Arnold Kronstadt'). As an ACTIVE senior, Kronstadt still draws current intake: his 2026-filed pending docket is dominated by the C.D. Cal. alien-detainee 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas surge (Calaguas, Fomichenko, Miroshnichenko, Hernandez Urias, Cabrera v. Noem -- all '463 Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee', filed May 2026, mostly Riverside 5:26-cv) plus ADA Title III access suits (Magallanes v. Little Tonys, Guardado v. Harbor Smoke Shop), immigration mandamus, and a Wells Fargo foreclosure. His older terminated dockets (2010-2020) skew ADA Title III, employment, contract/foreclosure, and patent -- most terminating fast by settlement or voluntary dismissal (e.g. Tony Scott v. La Cienega Beverly Hills ADA ~3 months; Langer v. Mueller / Carrillo v. LJGR ADA ~6 weeks; Nqueue v. Bayne patent ~10 months; Western Thrift & Loan v. Homeowners Lending contract ~2.3 years). Durations are filed-minus-terminated for terminated dockets in the sample.