Josephine L. Staton
How Judge Staton rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Staton
Josephine L. Staton is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Staton received a commission on June 22, 2010. Judge Staton assumed senior status on September 19, 2026.
Judge Staton's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Staton, 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 ↗
- Initial Standing Order 05.29.26.pdf ↗
- Self-Representation Order 05.29.26.pdf ↗
- Order Re Criminal Proceedings 05.29.26.pdf ↗
- Order Setting Scheduling Conference w Exhibit A 05.29.26.pdf ↗
- Patent Cases Exhibit B - REVISED 08 31 2022 ↗
- Civil Trial Order 07.24.2026.pdf ↗
- Under Seal Filings in Civil Cases 02.24.2026.pdf ↗
- Under Seal Filings in Criminal Cases 02.18.2026.pdf ↗
- Attorneys Fees Excel Spreadsheet 01-31-17 - Sample Format ↗
- Class Action Post-Settlement Distribution Form JLS 09 15 25.pdf ↗
Key rules
Filing
Mandatory chambers copies are generally not required.
“Mandatory chambers copies are generally not required.”
Motions
Civil motions are heard Fridays at 10:30 a.m.; no date reservation is needed, but closed dates should be checked.
“Civil motions are heard on Friday at 10:30 a.m. There is no need to reserve a date, but a list of closed dates is located at the top right of this page.”
Motions
A party may file only one summary judgment motion per case.
“A party may file only one summary judgment motion in a case.”
Conferences
Requests to appear by telephone or Zoom videoconference must be made by filing an application no fewer than five days in advance of the hearing.
“Requests to appear by telephone or Zoom videoconference must be made by filing an application no fewer than five days in advance of the hearing.”
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 Staton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Delarosa v. Boiron, Staton denied judgment on the pleadings against state consumer protection claims concerning Coldcalm’s labeling because the cited federal rules did not expressly sanction the alleged misleading practice.
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion.”
In CYBERsitter, Staton denied several foreign defendants’ jurisdictional and forum motions after examining the alleged conduct and the defendants’ contacts with California.
“Having considered the parties’ briefs and heard oral argument, the Court DENIES each of the motions.”
In a fax advertising class action, the court certified the class defined by a common opt-out notice after finding common proof would avoid individual consent inquiries.
“The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed Class B satisfies both the predominance and superiority requirements.”
Procedural preferences
In Peel v. BrooksAmerica Mortgage Corp., Staton granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss after addressing the borrowers’ fraudulent omission, unfair competition, and contract claims separately.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.”
In one trade-secret and RICO case, treated amendment claim by claim: the trade-secret claim was dismissed with prejudice while the RICO claim received leave to amend.
“The claim for trade secret misappropriation in violation of the DTSA is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The RICO claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.”
In a removed wage and hour action, the court denied remand after finding the collective bargaining agreement supplied the source of the overtime claim and gave rise to LMRA section 301 preemption.
“Plaintiff’s overtime claim therefore exists solely as a result of the 2019 CPA and is preempted by § 301 of the LMRA.”
Cautions
In one proposed right-of-publicity class, individualized proof of consent and damages defeated predominance.
“These inquiries predominate over any common questions”
In the same fax advertising case, the court declined to certify a proposed class when membership depended on individualized consent and business-relationship facts.
“Plaintiffs have failed to ‘establish an objective way to determine’ who is a class member.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS Record Companies’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and DENIES Blue-Beat’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion.”
“Having considered the parties’ briefs and heard oral argument, the Court DENIES each of the motions.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.”
“For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss. The claim for trade secret misappropriation in violation of the DTSA is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The RICO claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.”
“Because the Court has dismissed the operative complaint, Gorovenko's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 105) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motions to Compel Arbitration.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Lightbourne’s Motion for Class Certification.”
“the Court GRANTS CBSI’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety”
“DENIES AS MOOT CBSI’s Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Doc. 195)”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration on an Individual Basis.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The bounded recent docket review includes immigration and prisoner matters, ADA access suits, employment and insurance disputes, and consumer or contract cases. Many 2026 matters were still pending, while several early-2024 and early-2025 cases ended through settlement, amendment, or other procedural resolution before a contested merits ruling.
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 | 14 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 14 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 8 | 13 |
| Mar 2024 | 10 | 19 |
| Sep 2023 | 10 | 19 |
| Mar 2023 | 7 | 16 |
| Sep 2022 | 8 | 19 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 21 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 19 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 17 |
| Sep 2020 | 7 | 17 |
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 Staton: 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 Staton with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Staton, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Staton's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace