Stephanie S. Christensen

How Judge Christensen rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2023-07-05
Education
University of Chicago, B.A., with honors; UCLA School of Law, J.D., Order of the Coif
Signed orders read
30

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.

Maria D. Arroyo De Mendez v. Bisignano
5:25-cv-00198 · 2025-07-08
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“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.”

Alexander Taeyoung Kim v. Bisignano
2:25-cv-02407 · 2025-07-11
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“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.”

Alexander Taeyoung Kim v. Bisignano
2:25-cv-02407 · 2025-07-23
Attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“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.”

Maria D. Arroyo De Mendez v. Bisignano
5:25-cv-00198 · 2025-09-17
Attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted

“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.”

Christopher Thibodeaux v. General Motors LLC
2:25-cv-07105 · 2025-10-22
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“Defendant’s removal was timely and the remand motion is DENIED.”

Ray Myllyla v. Equity Residential Management, LLC
2:25-cv-10784 · 2026-01-08
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“For the above reasons, Defendant properly removed the action under the Class Action Fairness Act, and Plaintiff’s remand motion is DENIED.”

Ex parte application (defendant) Moot / procedural

“(IN CHAMBERS) Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF 9) and Denying As Moot Defendant’s Ex Parte Application (ECF 17)”

Leslie Zuniga v. R.I.M. Logistics, LTD.
2:25-cv-10706 · 2026-02-13
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“Accordingly, the remand motion (ECF 5) is GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED to the state court.”

Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Further, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s cross-complaint (ECF 10) is DENIED as moot.”

Cindy T. v. Bisignano
5:24-cv-02678 · 2026-03-11
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“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.”

Gilberto Jimenez Aguilar v. Joshua Johnson
5:26-cv-01197 · 2026-04-07
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted

“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.”

Serkan Kanar v. Fereti Semaia
5:26-cv-01412 · 2026-04-07
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“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 ).”

Motion for temporary restraining order (petitioner) Moot / procedural
Tianwei Liu v. Markwayne Mullin
5:26-cv-01697 · 2026-04-07
Motion for temporary restraining order (petitioner) Denied

“Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for a TRO (ECF 5) is DENIED.”

Hung Van Ly v. Secretary of Department of Homeland Security
5:26-cv-01603 · 2026-04-17
Habeas petition (petitioner) Granted

“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-one outcome dockets had grounded filing-to-termination intervals; the short median reflects the habeas concentration rather than the judge’s full caseload.

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