Terry J. Hatter Jr.
How Judge Hatter rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hatter
Terry J. Hatter, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President Jimmy Carter, Judge Hatter received a commission on December 20, 1979. Judge Hatter assumed senior status on April 22, 2005.
Judge Hatter's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hatter, 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.
Key rules
Filing
Deliver mandatory chambers copies of electronically filed documents by noon on the next business day.
“Mandatory chambers copies of ALL electronic filed documents shall be delivered to the Courtroom Deputy in the CLERK’S OFFICE, on the 4TH FLOOR, CUSTOMER SERVICE WINDOW of the 350 W. 1ST STREET COURTHOUSE by 12 noon the next business day and should be stamped ‘COURT COPY’.”
Motions
Notice civil motions for Mondays and state that no appearance is necessary unless the court gives notice.
“Civil motions are noticed for Mondays, excluding holidays. If Monday is a holiday, skip to the following Monday. Indicate the date and for the time it should read no appearance necessary, unless the court notifies parties. Judge Hatter takes all CIVIL motions under submission as of the calendared date of the motion, (see Local Rule 83-9.2).”
Discovery
Calendar discovery motions before the magistrate judge.
“Discovery motions are to be calendared before the magistrate judge. Counsel should contact the magistrate judge’s court clerk regarding these motions.”
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 Hatter decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hendrickson, the record showing that Amazon lacked control over a third-party DVD sale established the DMCA safe harbor defense at summary judgment.
“Thus, Amazon has proven that it qualifies for the safe harbor affirmative defense of the DMCA.”
Procedural preferences
In Perez, the court required the Secretary of Labor to establish a prima facie summary-judgment case, then required City National to identify a triable issue.
“If the Secretary satisfies his burden, the burden shifts to City National to introduce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue.”
In Uhles, Hatter remanded after finding that a defendant’s legal staff had received the complaint more than thirty days before removal.
“Woolworth’s removal was untimely, therefore,”
Cautions
In Sutton, Hatter denied summary judgment in a franchise dispute because the plaintiff’s understanding of the earlier nonrenewal notice remained disputed.
“there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Sutton understood Arco’s statement in 1981”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“It is Ordered that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment be, and hereby is, Granted.”
“It is further Ordered that Defendants's motion for summary judgment be, and hereby is, Denied.”
“It is Ordered that the Secretary's motion for partial summary judgment be, and hereby is, Granted.”
“It is Ordered that Provident's motion to establish ERISA application and for dismissal of state law claims be, and hereby is, Denied.”
“It is further Ordered that Nosrati's motion for an order that this matter is not governed by ERISA be, and hereby is, Granted.”
“It is Ordered that Benchmark's motion for summary judgment be, and hereby is, Granted as to Benchmark's first claim -- rescission of the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Policies. ... Granted as to Benchmark's second claim -- a judicial declaration that it does not have a duty to defend or indemnify ...”
“IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice because it is successive, petitioner did not obtain the requisite authorization from the Court of Appeals to file a successive petition, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it.”
“It is Ordered that Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to damages be, and hereby is, Granted.”
“It is Further Ordered that Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as to damages be, and hereby is, Denied.”
“It is further Ordered that Plaintiffs motion to strike declarations and exhibits submitted by City National in support of City National’s motion for partial summary judgment as to damages be, and hereby is, Denied as moot.”
“Therefore, Amazon’s motion for summary judgment be, and hereby is, Granted.”
“It is Ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be, and hereby is, Granted.”
“However, based upon this Court’s conclusion that the Secretary has the right to reopen a case, such a class action is moot. ... IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and summary judgment be, and hereby are, denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and summary judgment be, and hereby are, denied.”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on plaintiffs’ claims with respect to both defendants’ Profit Sharing Plan and Pension Plan.”
“Defendants’ motion to strike the declaration of Virginia Gould is denied on the basis that the challenged statements are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the declaration of Larry Heimsoth is granted, Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e).”
“Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions is denied for insufficient basis on this record.”
“Meinhold’s motion for a preliminary injunction be granted.”
“IT IS ORDERED that this action be and hereby is, remanded.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed current assignments include copyright, commercial contract, pension, bankruptcy-related, and immigration-habeas matters. Thirteen valid matters in the bounded 2026 windows remained pending. The only two rows reported terminated had internally inconsistent docket data and were excluded from outcome and duration analysis.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 12 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 12 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 12 |
| Mar 2025 | 3 | 14 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 15 |
| Mar 2024 | 4 | 17 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 18 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 18 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 20 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 21 |
| Sep 2021 | 6 | 17 |
| Mar 2021 | 5 | 22 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 23 |
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 Hatter: 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 Hatter with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hatter, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hatter's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace