Otis D. Wright II
How Judge Wright rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wright
Otis D. Wright, II is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Wright received a commission on April 16, 2007.
Judge Wright's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wright, 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 ↗
- 2025-Patent Standing Order ↗
- ADR-20 ↗
- ADR-21 ↗
- ADR-22 ↗
- CRIMINAL TRIAL ORDER_08 2025 ↗
- NOTICE Schedule Case (01-25) ↗
- Scheduling and Case Management Order (JURY TRIAL) 8-25 ↗
- Scheduling and Case Management Order (Notice) (BENCH TRIAL) 8-25 ↗
- SELF-REPRESENTATION ORDER 2021 ↗
- STANDING MINUTE ORDER-NEW CASES ↗
Key rules
Contacting chambers
Counsel are not to communicate with chambers unless first contacted by Judge Wright’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk (CRD).
“Counsel are not to communicate with chambers unless first contacted by Judge Wright’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk (CRD).”
Filing
Chambers copies are required only for summary judgment motions, motions in limine, and pretrial documents.
“EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY - No mandatory chambers copies required, EXCEPT FOR MSJs, MILs, and Pretrial documents.”
Motions
Check the scheduling and case management order for requirements on summary judgment motions and motions in limine.
“Other Motions - Refer to the Court’s Scheduling and Case Management Order for specific rules governing motions for summary judgment and motions in limine.”
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 Wright decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rubenstein v. Smith, Wright considered declarations and live cross-examination in a factual Rule 12(b)(1) challenge before dismissing the plaintiff’s Section 16(b) action for lack of standing.
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 34.)”
Procedural preferences
In Body Jewelz, Inc. v. Valley Forge Insurance Co., Wright declined to consider GoDaddy’s extrinsic agreements on its motion to dismiss because their contents were unsuitable for judicial notice and the plaintiff disputed their authenticity.
“The Court will not consider the agreements in connection with this motion to dismiss.”
In Tran v. Kansas City Life Insurance Co., Wright found that the insurer’s corrective measures addressed an objection to medical records and considered those records on summary judgment.
“The Court finds that these measures adequately address Defendant's concerns and will consider the medical records.”
In an unopposed immigration-detention emergency application, he ordered immediate release after finding likely success on a due-process challenge to re-detention without notice or a hearing; the later final order made the procedural protections permanent.
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s TRO. (Dkt. No. 2.) It is hereby ORDERED that: Respondents shall IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner.”
Cautions
In Durham v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, Wright denied remand and dismissed the plaintiff’s state-law benefit claims after finding that the disability plan at issue did not qualify for the church-plan exemption.
“the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, and GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 10, 11.)”
In Elliott v. Edison International, Wright found that the challenged wildfire-risk estimates did not promise that power shutoffs could be used on every transmission line. He dismissed the securities claims while allowing limited amendment.
“The Risk Reduction Statements are all they are: probabilities. By their very nature, probabilities and estimates invite a certain level of uncertainty and qualification.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 34.)”
“For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion in its entirety.”
“The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART GoDaddy's motion to dismiss.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, and GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (ECF Nos. 10, 11.)”
“ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [22]”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s TRO. (Dkt. No. 2.) It is hereby ORDERED that: Respondents shall IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Petitioner.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting the Petition, and permanently enjoining and restraining Respondents from re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include, at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice and a timely hearing before a neutral arbiter at which the government bears the burden of establishing that Petitioner poses a risk of flight or danger to the community.”
“Notwithstanding the forum-selection and choice-of-law language in the underlying insurance policy, the Court determines that there is a strong local interest in the case and therefore DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend as amendment would be futile.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED”
“For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Kroger's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART as to Plaintiff’s Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim — this claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. And based on the discussion above, Plaintiff fails to establish diversity jurisdiction for the remaining non-federal-question claims. Thus, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed 2026 docket is weighted toward alien-detainee habeas petitions and prisoner or state-custody matters. Velasquez Pinell produced immediate-release and final habeas relief; most other current matters remain pending. The older written decisions include insurance, employee-benefits, securities, consumer, and contract disputes.
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 | 13 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 11 |
| Mar 2022 | 7 | 12 |
| Sep 2021 | 7 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 9 | 5 |
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 Wright: 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 Wright with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wright, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wright's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace