Kenly Kiya Kato
How Judge Kato rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kato
Kenly Kiya Kato is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Kato received a commission on November 17, 2023.
Judge Kato's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kato, 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 Trial Scheduling Order v8.pdf ↗
- KK Civil Standing Order (2026).pdf ↗
- KK Order Setting Scheduling Conference.docx ↗
- KK Patent Standing Order.pdf ↗
- KK Standing Protective Order for Patent Cases .pdf ↗
- KK Criminal Standing Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
When filing or opposing a motion, lodge a proposed order and email a Word copy to chambers that day.
“Proposed Orders: Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter shall serve and electronically lodge – at the time the moving or opposition papers are filed – a proposed order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations. In addition, a copy of the proposed order in Word format shall be e-mailed to chambers at [email protected] on the day the document is e-filed.”
Conferences
Seek approval for a remote appearance at least five days before the hearing.
“All hearings will be held in person unless the Court has granted prior approval. Any request to appear remotely must be made no later than five days before the hearing date.”
Conferences
Submit continuance or extension requests at least five court days before the scheduled date expires.
“Continuances or Extensions of Time: Counsel must submit any request for a continuance or extension of time no later than five (5) court days prior to the expiration of the scheduled date.”
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 Kato decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In one insurance class action, the court granted a dismissal motion in part and denied it in part, giving the plaintiff a short window to amend or elect to proceed on the surviving claims.
“MINUTES (In Chambers) Order GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 31] by Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file either (1) a First Amended Class Action Complaint, or (2) a statement indicating Plaintiff intends to proceed on the remaining causes of action in the Complaint.”
In one inherited insurance class action, the court allowed an initial amended complaint but refused to extend the amendment deadline; when the plaintiffs soon sought another amendment, the court denied it for lack of diligence and good cause and warned against attempts to circumvent the earlier ruling.
“The Motion is denied as Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate due diligence or good cause. Moreover, the Motion appears to be a transparent attempt to circumvent this Court's prior ruling denying Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline to file a motion to amend the pleadings or add additional parties, dkt. 72.”
In one wage-and-hour removal dispute, the judge rejected an amount-in-controversy estimate because the defendant did not support its violation-rate assumptions with adequate evidence.
“because Defendant relies on unsupported and unreasonable assumptions, Defendant fails to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, an amount in controversy greater than $5 million.”
In another removal dispute, the judge held that a local defendant was properly joined when the removing parties did not make the required showing of fraudulent joinder, defeating diversity jurisdiction.
“Defendants fail to present clear and convincing evidence defendant Tosha is a fraudulently joined defendant. The Court thus finds defendant Tosha is a properly joined defendant whose presence destroys diversity.”
In one immigration custody case, the court granted habeas relief after finding that detention without a predetention hearing created a high risk of wrongful loss of liberty and served a minimal government interest.
“a high risk of erroneous deprivation, and a minimal countervailing governmental interest in his detention”
In Vansickle’s removed premises-liability suit, Kato remanded because the plaintiff and an unserved defendant were both California citizens; the lack of service at removal did not cure the absence of complete diversity.
“complete diversity does not exist and removal jurisdiction is improper.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“MINUTES (In Chambers) Order GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 31] by Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file either (1) a First Amended Class Action Complaint, or (2) a statement indicating Plaintiff intends to proceed on the remaining causes of action in the Complaint.”
“The Court construes Petitioner's failure to oppose or otherwise respond to Respondents' request for dismissal as consent to dismissal. Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby DISMISSED.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court AFFIRMS the Bankruptcy Court’s November 9, 2023 Order. (JS-6).”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is DENIED”
“DENYING Application to Appear Remotely as MOOT [Dkt. 16]”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. Further, in light of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED as MOOT”
“Order DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Dkt. 12]”
“For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Motion and certifies the 11 Settlement Class for settlement purposes only”
“For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Motion, finally certifies the 10 Settlement Class, awards reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and service awards, and 11 enters Final Judgment”
“The Court finds that an award of attorneys’ 14 fees in the amount of $185,410.42 and reimbursement of costs and expenses in the 15 amount of $9,589.58 (for a combined total of $195,000) to Class Counsel is fair and 16 reasonable; and therefore, approves such award”
“The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED;”
“Judgment be entered granting the petition for writ of habeas corpus;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- A sample of her assigned cases drawn from the docket record, limited to her Article III tenure.
- Young district docket (commission November 2023) sitting in Riverside (Eastern Division): insurance total-loss class actions, FCRA/consumer-credit suits, ADA Title III, employment civil-rights, a products-liability case transferred to MDL, pro se civil and habeas, and a federal-criminal calendar.
- Many civil cases settle, consolidate, transfer, or arbitrate.
- Durations below are filed-minus-terminated for terminated dockets in the sample (note: Stott's 'termination' was a CONSOLIDATION into Abraham, not a merits resolution; Olden was an MDL transfer).
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 4 | 0 |
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 Kato: 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 Kato with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kato, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kato's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace