Kim McLane Wardlaw

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California district Retired 1998 · served 1995–1998 Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 17 signed orders read

Judge Wardlaw no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

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.

Alltel Information Services, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
· 1997-07-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.”

Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Denied
Foundation for Horses and Other Animals v. Babbitt
· 1998-01-13
Summary judgment (Federal Defendants) Granted

“the Court hereby GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”

Selznick v. Turner Entertainment Co.
· 1997-11-03
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted in part

“The Court grants in part and denies in part both motions for partial summary judgment”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part
Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. Unocal Corp.
· 1997-11-04
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“the Court hereby GRANTS in part Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication of the Issues.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied
Los Angeles News Service v. Reuters Television International, Ltd.
· 1996-07-22
Summary judgment (defendants) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in part and DENIES it in part.”

Frierson v. Calderon
· 1997-05-29
Summary judgment (petitioner) Denied

“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.”

Summary judgment (respondent) Granted
Gospel Missions of America v. Bennett
· 1997-01-10
Summary judgment (plaintiffs) Granted

“the Court grants partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs as to their first and second causes of action.”

Vasquez v. City of Bell Gardens
· 1996-08-07
Summary judgment (defendants) Denied

“ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”

Beale v. GTE California
· 1996-10-24
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS GTE’s Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Greenpeace, Inc. (USA) v. State of France
· 1996-10-04
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the Republic of France.”

Gould v. Harris
· 1996-06-12
Motions to dismiss (defendants) Granted

“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second and fifth causes of action with leave to amend.”

Request for undertaking (defendants) Denied

“The Court DENIES defendants’ request for an undertaking.”

Ado Finance, AG v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
· 1996-05-09
Motions to dismiss (counterclaim defendants) Denied

“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 no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.