Stephanie S. Christensen
How Judge Christensen rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Christensen
Stephanie S. Christensen became a U.S. magistrate judge for the Central District of California in July 2023 and sits in Los Angeles. She previously spent about 15 years in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the district, including service as acting U.S. attorney in 2022.
Judge Christensen's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Christensen, 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 Trial Order - Hon. Stephanie S. Christensen ↗
- Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates Updated 5.6.26.pdf ↗
- Stipulated Protective Order (PDF) ↗
- Stipulated Protective Order (WORD) ↗
Key rules
Filing
In civil cases, courtesy copies are required for summary judgment motions and oppositions; other electronic filings do not require them.
“Judge Christensen does not require courtesy copies of electronically filed documents. The only exception is for summary judgment motions and oppositions in civil cases.”
Motions
Civil motions are heard Tuesdays at 1:30 p.m.; check the closed motion dates before filing.
“Civil motions are heard on Tuesdays at 1:30 p.m. Please check the Closed Motion Dates before filing a motion.”
Discovery
A discovery motion requires a pre-motion Zoom conference unless the court grants leave on an ex parte application.
“Third, no discovery motion may be filed until the Court has conducted a pre-motion conference via Zoom unless the movant has obtained leave of Court sought by an ex parte application.”
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 Christensen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one reviewed employment case, the court remanded because the removing defendant did not support the jurisdictional amount with sufficiently similar verdicts or other non-speculative evidence.
“Because Defendant has not established that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and thus has not carried its burden to show that diversity jurisdiction exists, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.”
In a reviewed consent habeas matter, the respondents’ concession that the petitioner belonged to a previously certified bond-eligible class led the court to grant the petition and require an individualized bond hearing.
“At the hearing, Respondents conceded that Petitioner appears to be a member of the bond-eligible class certified in Maldonado Bautista.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Having approved the parties’ joint stipulation to voluntary remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and to entry of judgment, THE COURT ADJUDGES AND DECREES that judgment is entered for Plaintiff.”
“Based upon the parties’ Stipulation to Remand for Further Proceedings Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42.U.S.C. § 405(g) (‘Stipulation to Remand’), and for cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned action be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the terms of the Stipulation to Remand.”
“IT IS ORDERED that fees and expenses in the amount of $6,300.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, be awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, (‘EAJA’) in the amount of FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS and 00/cents ($4,700.00), as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d), and subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.”
“Defendant’s removal was timely and the remand motion is DENIED.”
“For the above reasons, Defendant properly removed the action under the Class Action Fairness Act, and Plaintiff’s remand motion is DENIED.”
“(IN CHAMBERS) Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF 9) and Denying As Moot Defendant’s Ex Parte Application (ECF 17)”
“Accordingly, the remand motion (ECF 5) is GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED to the state court.”
“Further, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s cross-complaint (ECF 10) is DENIED as moot.”
“IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is affirmed consistent with the Memorandum and Order filed concurrently herewith.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered (1) granting the petition; and (2) enjoining Respondents from continuing to detain Petitioner unless he is provided with an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) no later than April 14, 2026.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered (1) denying the petition (ECF 1 ) without prejudice, and (2) denying as moot Petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order (ECF 3 ).”
“Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for a TRO (ECF 5) is DENIED.”
“IT IS ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF 1) is granted, and Petitioner’s immediate release from immigration custody is ordered.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed matters span older benefits and removed civil cases and a concentrated 2026 consent-habeas cohort. Twenty-five outcome dockets had grounded filing-to-termination intervals; the short median reflects the habeas concentration rather than the judge’s full caseload.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
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 Christensen: 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 Christensen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Christensen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Christensen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace