Mark C. Scarsi
How Judge Scarsi rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Scarsi
Mark Christopher Scarsi is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Scarsi received a commission on September 18, 2020.
Judge Scarsi's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Scarsi, 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 Case Standing Order July 2026.pdf ↗
- Criminal Case Standing Order June 2026.pdf ↗
- Order re Trial September 2026.pdf ↗
- Order Setting Scheduling Conference June 2026.pdf ↗
- Joint Exhibit List Template ↗
- Joint Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order Template ↗
- Witness List Template ↗
Key rules
Filing
Mandatory chambers copies are not required.
“Mandatory chambers copies are not required.”
Motions
Oppositions to ex parte applications must be filed within 24 hours of the filing of the application, subject to Rule 6(a)(2).
“Oppositions to ex parte applications must be filed within 24 hours of the filing of the application, subject to Rule 6(a)(2).”
Motions
Civil matters are heard Mondays at 9 a.m.
“CIVIL MATTERS are heard on Mondays at 9:00 a.m.”
Motions
The declaration confirming the prefiling conference must state whether it occurred in person, by phone, or by video.
“the declaration must state whether the conference took place in person, by telephone, or via video conference.”
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 Scarsi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Accepts the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation and denies a habeas petition on the merits, dismissing with prejudice.
“ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Mark C. Scarsi for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 23. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered DENYING the Petition on the merits and dismissing this action WITH PREJUDICE.”
In the reviewed copyright case, the court stayed proceedings until the plaintiff used available takedown procedures for specific alleged infringements.
“stays this case until Plaintiff demonstrates that it has availed itself of DMCA remedies, including issuing takedown notices for specific instances of copyright infringement.”
In an employment dispute, the court remanded after finding the defendants had not shown that a nondiverse employee was fraudulently joined. It denied a dismissal motion as moot after remand.
“the Court cannot conclude that Hartley was fraudulently joined to the action.”
In a proposed class action over email tracking, the court remanded after finding the removing defendant had not established injury in fact for federal standing. It denied the dismissal motion for lack of jurisdiction.
“Defendant here has not met its burden to show a violation of the 12 Arizona Records Act amounts to an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III 13 standing.”
In a removal-detention habeas case, Scarsi rejected a claim that a stay during reopening proceedings alone made removal unforeseeable. He denied the petition and dismissed it without prejudice.
“The stay of removal does not render Petitioner’s removal unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future.”
Cautions
In a drug-pricing suit, dismissed claims that sought to enforce the federal 340B program without a private right of action.
“Because there is no private right of action for a covered entity to enforce the 340B”
In the reviewed municipal-liability case, the court denied leave to amend after counsel could not identify additional facts that would cure the causation defect.
“amendment of the claims would be futile.”
In a bankruptcy appeal, Scarsi affirmed the denial of sanctions over a discharge injunction. The bank’s plausible claim to pledged collateral left at least fair doubt about whether the injunction barred its conduct.
“the record supports at least a fair ground of doubt that the certificate of deposit at issue is subject to the injunction.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 17) ... Defendant American Home Assurance Company moves to dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, Department of Airports ... [Judgment, ECF No. 25:] Pursuant to this Court's Orders 24, IT IS ADJUDGED that the action is dismissed with prejudice. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant American Home Assurance Company. Plaintiff City of Los Angeles Department of Airports shall take nothing from this action.”
“ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Mark C. Scarsi for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 23. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered DENYING the Petition on the merits and dismissing this action WITH PREJUDICE.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF 1) is denied.”
“The Court grants the motion in substantial part. The Court issues a preliminary injunction as follows: (1) Respondents shall release Petitioner from detention forthwith. (2) Respondents and all of their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and persons acting on their behalf, in concert, or in participation with them are enjoined from re-detaining Petitioner without providing her a pre-detention hearing before a neutral adjudicator.”
“Based on the above, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
“The Court grants the City’s motion and denies leave to amend.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and referral to a master is denied.”
“the Court denies both the motion to withdraw and the motion for summary judgment.”
“The Court grants the motion and remands this case”
“Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as moot.”
“The Court grants the motion to remand.”
“The Court denies Defendant’s motion to 11 dismiss (ECF No. 12) without prejudice because it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the 12 motion.”
“The Court issues a preliminary injunction as follows:”
“The Court affirms the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court.”
“The Court denies the motion to remand”
“The motion to dismiss is granted.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed recent matters are dominated by pending alien-detainee habeas petitions filed in May and June 2026.
- Older resolved matters include insurance and contract disputes, securities enforcement, trademark, ADA Title III and prisoner civil-rights cases, state-prisoner habeas petitions, bankruptcy appeals, and criminal cases.
- Duration figures are limited to reviewed cases with both filing and termination dates.
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 | 3 |
| 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 | 4 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 3 | 4 |
| Sep 2025 | 6 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 12 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 15 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 13 |
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 Scarsi: 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 Scarsi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Scarsi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Scarsi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace