Mónica Ramírez Almadani
How Judge Almadani decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a Social Security appeal and in habeas cases, she reliably adopts the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation once the objection period lapses without a timely objection, and applies it to reverse-and-remand or deny-and-dismiss as the R&R recommends.
“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (‘Report’) dated January 10, 2025, Dkt. No. 100, and all other records and files herein. The time for filing objections to the Report has passed and no objections have been received. The Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.”
Faced with a stipulated deadline extension filed the same day the original deadline expired, she granted the extension but declined to simply rubber-stamp the parties' proposed schedule, imposing her own firm cutoff instead -- a sign she reads stipulations for reasonableness rather than approving them automatically.
“Defendant's response was due on March 1, 2024, the same date that the Stipulation was filed with the Court. The Court nevertheless orders that Defendant's time to respond to Plaintiff's complaint is extended to March 11, 2024, without further extension.”
Procedural preferences
She moves quickly to enforce Rule 4(m) service deadlines and Local Rule prosecution obligations with an Order to Show Cause, but her practice is to give plaintiffs (including pro se prisoners) repeated, generous extensions before actually dismissing -- dismissal typically comes only after multiple missed deadlines or an unanswered OSC.
“It is Plaintiff's responsibility to respond promptly to all Orders and to prosecute this action diligently. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.”
When a motion becomes moot because the court is granting relief on a threshold, non-merits ground (personal or subject-matter jurisdiction, arbitration), she resolves the case on that narrow ground and denies the remaining motions as moot rather than reaching the merits.
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue, ECF 13, is DENIED as moot.”
In removed cases where she grants a plaintiff's motion to remand, she has separately denied the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees even when granting the substantive remand -- treating the fee question as a distinct inquiry from the jurisdictional one.
“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is GRANTED but her request for attorneys' fees is DENIED.”
Cautions
A dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction that also grants leave to amend comes with a hard deadline; if the plaintiff misses it without seeking an extension, she treats the case as abandoned and enters final judgment dismissing without prejudice on her own motion, without further briefing.
“Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the deadline, August 30, 2024. Nor has Plaintiff sought an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.”
She has granted a motion to dismiss a civil-rights complaint entirely without leave to amend where the plaintiffs had already amended once and the pleading defects were, in her view, incurable; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF 29) is GRANTED without leave to amend.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND THE ENTIRE CASE BACK TO STATE COURT [ECF 15] by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is GRANTED but her request for attorneys' fees is DENIED. MD JS-6. Case Terminated.”
“JUDGMENT GRANTING DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani: This action came on for hearing before the Court on June 9, 2025, the Honorable Monica Ramirez Almadani, District Judge presiding, on a Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation.”
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AND DENYING THE MOTION AS TO OTHER REQUESTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF 17] by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani Granting in part and Denying in part 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction: For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED. The Motion is DENIED without prejudice as to all other requests.”
“MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in its March 28, 2025, Order and for failure to comply with the Court's deadline to amend the pleading, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk shall treat this Order as an entry of judgment.”
“MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER VENUE AS MOOT [ECF 13] by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction with leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).”
“Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue, ECF 13, is DENIED as moot.”
“JUDGMENT by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of her complaint and judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants on all claims and allegations. Defendants shall recover their costs in an amount to be determined by the Court.”
“JUDGMENT by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the agency for further proceedings.”
“ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) Respondent's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9) is GRANTED; and (2) Judgment be entered dismissing the Petition with prejudice as untimely.”
“ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani for Report and Recommendation 22. The Petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. No. 1).”
“ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani for Report and Recommendation 27. The Petition is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. No. 1).”
“ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 31 by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani for Report and Recommendation (Issued), 31, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted and the Petition is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling should Petitioner secure the necessary prior authorization from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive petition.”
“ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment will be entered dismissing this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Young docket (commissioned November 2023). Heavy on consumer and contract-removal cases (TCPA, FCRA, ADA Title III, breach of contract) that frequently settle before a contested ruling; a substantial habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. 2254), Social Security appeal, and prisoner civil-rights (42 U.S.C. 1983) caseload, largely inherited from predecessor judges, where adopted recommendations and sua sponte dismissal orders supply much of the written evidence. Several large commercial, insurance-coverage, and civil-rights cases remained pending at the evidence cutoff, including a July 2026 United States v. State of California suit seeking to enjoin a California statute.
Put Judge Almadani's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Almadani actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Almadani's own signed orders and cites them.