Kenly Kiya Kato
How Judge Kato rules, drawn from 4 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
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.”
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.”
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).
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