John F. Walter
How Judge Walter rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Walter
John F. Walter is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Walter received a commission on May 1, 2002.
Judge Walter's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Walter, 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 ↗
- Under Seal Filing Instructions - Civil.pdf ↗
- Under Seal Filing Instructions - Criminal.pdf ↗
Key rules
Filing
Deliver two copies of every electronically filed document to chambers.
“Counsel are ORDERED to deliver 2 copies of all documents filed electronically to Chambers.”
Filing
Electronically file documents by 4 p.m. on the due date unless the court orders otherwise.
“All documents which are required to be filed in an electronic format pursuant to Local Rules governing electronic filing shall be filed electronically no later than 4:00 p.m. on the date due unless otherwise ordered by the Court.”
Motions
Civil motions are heard on: Monday at 1:30 p.m.
“Civil motions are heard on: Monday at 1:30 p.m.”
Conferences
Should the parties still wish to request a remote appearance, no later than three (3) court days before the court proceeding an ex parte application and proposed order or stipulation and proposed order shall be filed.
“Should the parties still wish to request a remote appearance, no later than three (3) court days before the court proceeding an ex parte application and proposed order or stipulation and proposed order shall be filed.”
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 Walter decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Novalogic, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Walter granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment in a trademark suit involving a video game.
“ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC., AND PENGUIN GROUP (USA), INC. [filed 3/14/13; Docket No. 34] JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.”
In Almeida, state-law employment claims remained in state court where the employer identified no active dispute over a collective-bargaining term that had to be interpreted.
“Defendants have failed to identify an ‘active dispute over the meaning’ of any of these provisions or terms.”
In Anderson, a nonfrivolous sexual-harassment allegation defeated the request to compel arbitration while leaving the claim’s merits open for a later motion.
“Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff has alleged a nonfrivolous sexual harassment claim, LVUSA’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED.”
In Gallardo’s wage class action, the court denied remand after accepting a supported waiting-time-penalty calculation above the jurisdictional threshold.
“Defendant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.”
Procedural preferences
In Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, Walter granted the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
“PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.”
In Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Perfumes World Com, Inc., Walter granted Moroccanoil’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied Perfumes World’s summary judgment motion.
“Having considered the parties' written submissions, the Court GRANTS Moroccanoil, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and DENIES Perfumes World's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
In the Toyota dismissal ruling, the court submitted the motion on the papers under Rule 78 and the local rule.
“Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court found the matter appropriate for submission on the papers without oral argument.”
In Sampaio, failure to lodge the proposed statement of decision required by the court’s standing order supplied an independent ground for granting the dismissal motion.
“WF Bank’s Motion to Dismiss is granted on the alternative ground that Plaintiff failed to file a Proposed Statement of Decision.”
In Mankarious’s vehicle warranty case, the court treated failure to lodge the proposed statement required by its standing order as an additional ground to deny remand.
“Plaintiff’s Motion is also denied for Plaintiff’s failure to lodge the Proposed Statement of Decision in violation of the Court’s Standing Order.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.”
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [filed 9/23/13; Docket No. 30] JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.”
“ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC., AND PENGUIN GROUP (USA), INC. [filed 3/14/13; Docket No. 34] JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.”
“PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING THYSSEN-BORNEMISZA COLLECTION FOUNDATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [filed 3/23/2015; Docket No. 249]”
“ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION RE: CHOICE OF CALIFORNIA LAW [filed 3/23/2015; Docket No. 251] HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE”
“Having considered the parties' written submissions, the Court GRANTS Moroccanoil, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and DENIES Perfumes World's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“The Court therefore GRANTS KINSALE's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES the SECARD PARTIES Motion for Summary Judgment as moot.”
“For the reasons stated herein, Cavalry’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED and this action is STAYED pending the results of arbitration.”
“For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED.”
“For all the foregoing reasons, Toyota’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“respondent’s motion to dismiss the habeas corpus petition is granted, and Judgment shall be entered dismissing the petition without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that: (1) defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56 is granted; (2) plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56 is denied;”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is denied without prejudice. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed mid-2026 assignments are dominated by pending alien-detainee habeas petitions.
- Older resolved matters include False Claims Act health-care litigation, criminal cases, immigration mandamus and naturalization disputes, state-prisoner habeas petitions, automotive and consumer contracts, ADA Title III access suits, and wage-and-hour litigation.
- 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 | 2 |
| 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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 3 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 6 |
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 Walter: 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 Walter with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Walter, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Walter's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace