Michelle Williams Court
How Judge Court rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Court
Michelle Williams Court is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Court received a commission on November 7, 2024.
Judge Court's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Court, 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 ↗
- MWC - Civil Standing Order.pdf ↗
- MWC - Criminal Standing Order.pdf ↗
- MWC - Standing Order Re Patent Cases ↗
- MWC - Civil Trial Order.pdf ↗
- MWC - Order Setting Scheduling Conference .pdf ↗
- MWC - Final Pretrial Conference Order Template ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not provide courtesy copies unless the court orders them.
“Courtesy Copies: Please do not provide chambers/courtesy copies. In the rare instance in which the Court would like chambers copies for a particular situation, the Court will issue an order requesting them.”
Discovery
File discovery motions and proposed protective orders directly with the assigned magistrate judge and mark the caption “DISCOVERY MATTER”.
“Discovery: All discovery-related disputes have been referred to and will be heard by an assigned Magistrate Judge. All discovery motions and proposed protective orders must be filed directly with that assigned judge. To ensure proper routing, the caption of all discovery-related documents must include the words, ‘DISCOVERY MATTER’.”
Conferences
File a supported remote-appearance request at least seven days before the court appearance.
“Important Notice: The Court strongly prefers in-person appearances. Requests for a remote appearance must be e-filed seven (7) days before any court appearance, must be supported by an appropriate declaration establishing good cause, and must indicate that counsel has met and conferred per 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 Court decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a First Amendment pre-enforcement standing dispute, the judge worked from the plaintiff's own pleaded facts against the statute's text rather than accepting the plaintiff's framing of an exemption: she found the plaintiff's own description of its meeting topics fell within the statutory 'political organization' exemption, defeating standing, and treated the plaintiff's attempt to import definitions from unrelated tax and education statutes as unpersuasive because those statutes were not 'in pari materia' with the challenged law.
“Those areas of California law do not relate to the Act -- context matters. ... The Court finds that its application of the meaning is consistent with the Act.”
On a diversity-jurisdiction challenge to removal, she treated a plaintiff's long-term residency (absent contrary evidence) as sufficient proof of domicile under the presumption of continuing domicile, and required the plaintiff to come forward with rebuttal evidence rather than merely disputing the sufficiency of the defendant's showing.
“At a minimum, a person's residence constitutes some evidence of domicile, and Plaintiff's residency in Sylmar reflects Plaintiff's intention to remain in Sylmar.”
In an immigration-detention case, the court held that release under a temporary order did not moot the request for longer relief where the government gave no assurance against re-detention; it granted an injunction requiring notice and a pre-deprivation hearing.
“Respondents have not met their heavy burden to demonstrate that the requested relief is moot since they offer no assurance that their previous wrongs will not recur.”
Procedural preferences
In Moody v. Textron, Judge Court dismissed the third amended class complaint without leave to amend after two earlier dismissals had allowed Moody to amend.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants Motion and dismisses the TAC WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.”
In Mondragon v. Flowserve, Judge Court denied the parties’ stipulated scheduling extension because they had not shown that diligent discovery required more time.
“The parties have not shown that discovery cannot be, or could not have been, completed within the allotted discovery period through reasonable diligence. Similarly, requesting the Court modify the scheduling order several days before the first discovery deadline does not demonstrate diligence. For lack of good cause shown, the Court DENIES the stipulation.”
In McReynolds v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Court applied the Rule 41(b) dismissal factors after the pro se petitioner failed to prosecute, but dismissed without prejudice in light of his circumstances.
“Considering all of the circumstances, and in particular given that Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the dismissal shall be without prejudice.”
Cautions
In Mohammed’s habeas case, she reviewed the respondent’s objections de novo, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and granted the petition.
“The Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the Report to which Respondent objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting the petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.”
In Sanchez Gonzalez v. Department of Homeland Security, Court denied a temporary restraining order seeking immediate release because the petitioner had not answered the government’s mandatory-detention argument; the habeas petition remained pending.
“Petitioner has therefore failed to satisfy his initial burden.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court DENIES the motion to remand.”
“THE COURT DENIES Plaintiff's motion to remand (Dkt. 14) by Judge Michelle Williams Court. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to remand.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
“Because Plaintiff does not have standing to bring a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it and therefore VACATES Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.”
“For the reasons set for above, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff must file any amended complaint no later than July 25, 2025.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants Motion and dismisses the SAC WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants Motion and dismisses the TAC WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.”
“The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant's motion to strike.”
“THE COURT DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART DEFENDANT'S Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 27) by Judge Michelle Williams Court. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Defendants motion for summary judgment.”
“The Court accepts the report, findings, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.”
“The Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the Report to which Respondent objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting the petition and dismissing this action with prejudice.”
“The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which any objections have been made. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered dismissing the Petition without prejudice.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the findings and recommendations in the Report, and Judgment shall be entered accordingly.”
“JUDGMENT GRANTING PETITIONER'S PETITION TO CONFIRM FOREIGN ARBITRATION AWARD by Judge Michelle Williams Court. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that ... Respondent Chen shall pay Petitioner Yuan the sum of RMB 13,844,000.00 ...”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
A young civil and criminal docket with removed consumer, ADA, employment, contract, trademark, civil-rights, Social Security, and habeas matters. The 2026 intake is heavily weighted toward immigration-detention petitions, most still pending. Many other civil cases resolve by settlement, voluntary dismissal, or default rather than a contested written ruling.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 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 Court: 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 Court with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Court, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Court's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace