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.”
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 prisoner civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. 1983 before District Judge Fred W. Slaughter. On sua sponte screening of the amended complaint, Rocconi dismissed with leave to amend, gave the plaintiff three options, and warned that failure to respond would lead her to recommend dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The non-dispositive screening order did not terminate the case and was not a ruling on a party motion.
“Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody subject only to the conditions of his preexisting parole.”
“IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this Petition is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this Petition is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this Petition is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this Petition is GRANTED.”
“IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this Petition is GRANTED, in part.”
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).
Her recent caseload includes immigration-detention habeas petitions, California consumer-warranty and contract cases removed from state court, Social Security disability appeals, antitrust matters, and referred prisoner civil-rights cases.
Put Judge Rocconi's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Rocconi actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Rocconi's own signed orders and cites them.