Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong
How Judge Frimpong rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Frimpong
Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Frimpong received a commission on February 7, 2022.
Judge Frimpong's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Frimpong, 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 Standing Order 07.01.26.docx ↗
- Civil Trial Order 07.01.26.docx ↗
- Class Action Schedule 05.03.2024 ↗
- Criminal Proposed Order (continuance of sentencing) 07.01.26.docx ↗
- Criminal Proposed Order Template (continuance of trial) 07.01.26.docx ↗
- Criminal Standing Order 07.01.26.docx ↗
- ERISA Schedule 08.27.25 ↗
- Final Pretrial Conference Order Template 5.10.22 ↗
- Joint Exhibit List 05.03.2024 ↗
- Order Setting Scheduling Conference 07.01.26.docx ↗
- Patent Schedule 05.03.2024 ↗
- Proposed Order Template ↗
- Witness List 04.29.2024 ↗
Key rules
Filing
The Court does not require chambers copies of any motion papers or exhibits and discourages the parties from sending chambers courtesy copies, with the exception of documents related to motions for summary judgment, as explained in Judge Frimpong’s Standing Order.
“The Court does not require chambers copies of any motion papers or exhibits and discourages the parties from sending chambers courtesy copies, with the exception of documents related to motions for summary judgment, as explained in Judge Frimpong’s Standing Order.”
Motions
Clear a hearing date with the courtroom deputy before filing a summary judgment or preliminary injunction motion; other motions need no advance clearance.
“It is NOT necessary to clear a motion date with the Courtroom Deputy (CRD) prior to filing the motion, except for motions for summary judgment and preliminary injunction.”
Motions
Email editable Excel versions of the statements of uncontroverted facts and genuine disputes to chambers.
“Statements of Uncontroverted Facts and Genuine Disputes shall also be in Excel, have all restrictions removed so the spreadsheets can be edited, and be emailed to the Court’s chambers email address at [email protected].”
Conferences
Any request for a remote Zoom appearance must be made by the Friday before the hearing and must indicate that counsel has met and conferred with opposing counsel consistent with Local Rule 7-3.
“Any request for a remote Zoom appearance must be made by the Friday before the hearing and must indicate that counsel has met and conferred with opposing counsel consistent with Local Rule 7-3.”
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 Frimpong decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Grants ex parte applications for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause where the plaintiffs establish grounds for emergency relief.
“Before the Court are two Ex Parte Applications for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs. ECF Nos. 38, 45. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the Ex Parte Applications.”
In the HKM trade secrets dispute, she let an amended misappropriation claim pass the pleading stage because whether the information was publicly disclosed required factual development. The ruling leaves the merits for discovery.
“public disclosure is a ‘factual issue which is proper for discovery’ and will not bar ALS from proceeding past the motion to dismiss pleading stage.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Before the Court are two Ex Parte Applications for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs. ECF Nos. 38, 45. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the Ex Parte Applications.”
Text-only sua sponte order. After issuing an order to show cause on March 27, 2023 asking why she should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the paired California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim in this ADA-access suit, including whether the plaintiff was a 'high-frequency litigant' under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 425.55(b), and receiving no response, Frimpong declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the Unruh claim without prejudice. She issued the same order to show cause in Larry Dunn v. Edmond Hagooli, Inc. (2:23-cv-00904), indicating a recurring practice relevant to ADA and Unruh Act plaintiffs. This was a court-initiated jurisdictional decision, not a ruling on a party motion.
“IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is GRANTED; (2) Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody unless Respondents have provided Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); and (3) Respondents shall file a notice of compliance advising how they complied with this Order within one day.”
“Brown’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 185) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter 15 or Amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) is DENIED.”
“the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion for Default Judgment”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED.”
“the Court DENIES the Motion and retains jurisdiction in this 3 Matter.”
“Petitioner’s request for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled cases include disability-access, False Claims Act, immigration detention, consumer warranty, employment, copyright, and housing disputes. Several immigration petitions in the sampled 2026 cohort have now reached interim or final decisions. Case durations below use the filed and termination dates of terminated sampled dockets.
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 | 9 |
| 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 | 21 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 9 | 21 |
| Sep 2025 | 6 | 20 |
| Mar 2025 | 6 | 26 |
| Sep 2024 | 17 | 27 |
| Mar 2024 | 11 | 27 |
| Sep 2023 | 11 | 16 |
| Mar 2023 | 19 | 16 |
| Sep 2022 | 26 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 6 |
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 Frimpong: 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 Frimpong with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Frimpong, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Frimpong's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace