Margo A. Rocconi
How Judge Rocconi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On California state-law cases removed to federal court, she scrutinizes the procedural prerequisites of removal and will remand for the defendant's failure to meet them -- she granted one remand outright because the removal was untimely, independent of the merits of jurisdiction.
“Because Defendant's removal was untimely, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED.”
Procedural preferences
In prisoner pro se screening she does not dismiss outright on a first deficient pleading: she dismisses with leave to amend, lays out the litigant's concrete options and a firm deadline, and reserves a with-prejudice recommendation for non-compliance -- a structured, second-chance approach to 1915A screening.
“If Plaintiff desires to pursue this action, he is ORDERED to respond by no later than December 23, 2022, by choosing one of the three (3) options discussed in Part V, below.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to remand N = 3 |
Granted: 2Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Social security appeal N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND, DKT. 14 by Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi. Because Defendant's removal was untimely, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: This action is REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court, 24CMCV00925.”
“ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND, DKT. 9 by Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi: Plaintiff Elicet Maldonado ("Plaintiff") filed the instant [motion to remand].”
“ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND, DKT. 10 by Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi: denying 10 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court.”
“by Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi ... IT IS ORDERED that judgment be entered REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDING this action for further administrative proceedings.”
REFERRAL (not consent) prisoner 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil-rights case (District Judge Fred W. Slaughter; Rocconi the referred magistrate, suffix -MAR). Sua sponte screening of the amended complaint: Rocconi dismissed WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, giving the plaintiff three options and warning that failure to respond would lead her to RECOMMEND dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim. A non-dispositive screening order (leave to amend; does not terminate the case), so it is excluded from motion stats but counts as an order read. Full verbatim docket entry text (entry 12); high confidence.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 190 days (N = 4).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 144 days (N = 3).
search_dockets(assigned_judge='Margo A. Rocconi') is currently DOMINATED by the 2026 alien-detainee 28:2241 habeas surge (nature_of_suit 463, Adelanto/Desert View ICE facilities, Riverside/San Bernardino) -- all filed May/June 2026 and pending, so they give no latency or durations. Behind that surge her enumerable docket is a consent/MJDAP magistrate mix: California consumer-warranty / product / breach-of-contract cases removed to federal court (Song-Beverly 'lemon law' against Ford/GM/Nissan) where she rules on motions to remand, Social Security disability appeals, an antitrust removal (Daniel Meir Klein DDS v. Delta Dental), and prisoner 1983 civil-rights cases referred to her for screening (Lee v. Maranda, DJ Fred W. Slaughter). She is also designated the referral magistrate on district-judge dockets (e.g. assigned with DJ Wesley L. Hsu).