Michael W. Fitzgerald
How Judge Fitzgerald rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Fitzgerald
Michael Walter Fitzgerald is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Fitzgerald received a commission on March 15, 2012.
Judge Fitzgerald's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Fitzgerald, 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 ↗
- Criminal Trial Order.2019 ↗
- Order Re Court Trial.June 2026.pdf ↗
- Order Re Jury Trial.June 2026.pdf ↗
- Order Setting Scheduling Conference.June 2026.pdf ↗
- Self-Representation Order.June 2026.pdf ↗
Key rules
Discovery
Calendar discovery motions and stipulations, including protective orders, before the assigned magistrate judge.
“All discovery motions and stipulations, including those relating to protective orders, are to be calendared before the magistrate judge whose initials appear in parentheses after the case number.”
Conferences
Expect an in-person hearing unless a Zoom or telephone hearing is docketed in advance.
“IF A HEARING WILL BE HELD ON ZOOM OR BY TELEPHONE (see Telephonic or Zoom Appearances, below), THAT INFORMATION WILL BE DOCKETED PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE. ABSENT SUCH A DOCKET ENTRY, THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN PERSON.”
Sealing
Justify each item sought to be sealed or redacted; blanket confidentiality claims are insufficient.
“Sealing must be justified for each individual item to be sealed or redacted; blanket claims of confidentiality are not allowed and will result in the denial of the application to seal.”
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 Fitzgerald decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Nelson v. Air & Liquid Systems, Fitzgerald granted six defendants summary judgment because Nelson had not produced evidence that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from any of their products.
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
On bankruptcy appeal, he followed controlling circuit precedent despite acknowledged policy concerns about its result.
“Whatever misgivings the bankruptcy court or this Court might have about the holding in Debbie Reynolds , it is controlling, and the bankruptcy court correctly applied it here.”
Procedural preferences
In Uniloc Luxembourg v. eClinicalWorks, Fitzgerald granted summary judgment of noninfringement on the record before him and denied the defendants’ invalidity motion as moot.
“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity.”
At the pleading stage in an education-disability action, declined to impose a pre-suit accommodation-request rule that controlling circuit law had not adopted for schools.
“In the absence of Ninth Circuit authority imposing the notice requirement in the education context, the Court declines to exalt form over substance and dismiss the Complaint on this basis.”
In Perez-Funez, the court required the government to show that ending an injunction protecting detained minors was tailored to changed circumstances; it found that showing lacking.
“Accordingly, the factual changes standing alone, or even considered in conjunction with legal changes, do not constitute changed circumstances that warrant outright termination of the Injunction.”
In a multi-party asbestos case, after the federal claims fell away, the court chose to decide pending dispositive motions before remanding the remaining state claims, citing efficiency and comity.
“The Court will retain jurisdiction through the adjudication of all pending dispositive motions. Upon adjudication of those motions, this Court will enter an order remanding this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.”
In Pedroso’s wage class action, the court denied remand because the complaint alleged joint employers from multiple states as primary defendants, defeating the home-state exceptions.
“Accordingly, Ladies Touch, Levy, and Legends are all primary defendants.”
In Bennett’s civil-rights case, the court denied a request to amend without prejudice because the proposed pleading arrived with the reply, after the defendants’ chance to respond.
“Though Plaintiff attached the proposed pleading in his Reply, that did not afford Defendants an opportunity to respond.”
Cautions
In Gray, Fitzgerald denied the insurer’s limitations-based motion to dismiss after holding that the pleaded disability-benefits claim accrued when covered disability ended, rather than when it began.
“The Court further agrees with the majority of courts outside this jurisdiction, which interpret the model language to require that a claim for disability benefits accrues at the termination of a period of covered disability.”
In a prescription-drug mass-tort action, treated limitations as case-dispositive where the plaintiff could not obtain cross-jurisdictional class tolling and had not relied on the other case as an alternative remedy.
“Given this history, it is not plausible that Plaintiff relied on an out-of-state class action suit as part of the diligent pursuit of his rights, and thus equitable tolling does not apply.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity.”
“DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the Surcharge Order.”
“this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant”
“Nelson, this Court granted summary judgment in his favor on the statutory claims”
“Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Bankruptcy Court.”
“Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Bankruptcy Court to dismiss Appellants’ Second Amended Complaint and to expunge the lis pendens, but REMANDS to the Bankruptcy Court for the limited purpose of correcting the scope of its dismissal order.”
“The Court DENIES the Petition for Writ of Mandamus.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to all counts.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is DENIED. Defendants will have 21 days from the entry of this Order in which to file an Answer to the Complaint.”
“the Court GRANTED Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion to Modify”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- A removal-heavy general civil diet typical of the Los Angeles federal bench: insurance breach/bad-faith suits removed on diversity, lemon-law and other consumer-contract removals against automakers, employment-discrimination removals, ADA and Fair Housing accessibility cases, False Claims Act / qui tam matters, and the occasional state-custody habeas.
- Durations below are filing-to-termination for 13 terminated cases filed in 2021 (median about 373 days), not motion-to-ruling latency.
- Many of these cases resolve by stipulated dismissal after private mediation rather than by a merits ruling, which the durations reflect.
- Consistent with that pattern, of the contested dockets whose timelines were reviewed, most closed by stipulated voluntary dismissal after a court-ordered mediation rather than by a dispositive ruling (e.g. a COVID business-interruption insurance suit and a trademark suit both dismissed by stipulation before their pending motions were decided).
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 | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 20 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 20 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 20 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 26 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 26 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 27 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 34 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 37 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 32 |
| Mar 2022 | 10 | 26 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 19 |
| Mar 2021 | 13 | 17 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 11 |
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 Fitzgerald: 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 Fitzgerald with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Fitzgerald, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Fitzgerald's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace