Kim McLane Wardlaw
How Judge Wardlaw rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Wardlaw left this court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Wardlaw
Kim McLane Wardlaw was a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Wardlaw received a commission on December 26, 1995. Judge Wardlaw left the court on August 3, 1998 on appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
How Judge Wardlaw decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In administrative-law review, she focused on the developed agency record and upheld action when that record demonstrated a reasoned, nonarbitrary decision.
“The Court finds that the Administrative Record demonstrates that removal of the horses was not arbitrary and capricious.”
In trademark-injunction analysis, she did not treat a short post-filing delay as defeating relief when the claim was strong and negotiations explained much of the elapsed time.
“Plaintiff’s delay of forty-one days is not too long to deny injunctive relief.”
Procedural preferences
She warned that filings violating local rules and her standing order would not be considered and could support future sanctions.
“Defendants are hereby warned that papers filed in violation of this Court's rules will not be considered by the Court, and sanctions may be imposed in the future.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.”
“the Court hereby GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”
“The Court grants in part and denies in part both motions for partial summary judgment”
“the Court hereby GRANTS in part Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication of the Issues.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in part and DENIES it in part.”
“Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment on claims C(2), H(2), 1(2) and 1(3) is DENIED, and Respondent’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on these claims is GRANTED.”
“the Court grants partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs as to their first and second causes of action.”
“ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“the Court GRANTS GTE’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the Republic of France.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second and fifth causes of action with leave to amend.”
“The Court DENIES defendants’ request for an undertaking.”
“the Court denies the motion of Steinbrugger and the An-stalts to dismiss first amended counterclaim for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
A historical record
Judge Wardlaw left this court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.