Virginia A. Phillips
How Judge Phillips rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Phillips
Virginia A. Phillips is a judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Phillips received a commission on November 15, 1999. Judge Phillips assumed senior status on February 14, 2022.
Judge Phillips's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Phillips's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Phillips decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In True v. American Honda, Phillips denied final settlement approval without prejudice after revised terms were sent to state attorneys general only ten days before the hearing.
“A mailing sent only ten days prior to the final approval hearing cannot possibly give adequate notice to the Attorneys General”
Cautions
In Cole v. CRST, Phillips decertified meal and rest break classes because deciding why individual drivers missed breaks required driver-specific inquiries.
“Hence, Plaintiff does not satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiff Mag Instrument, Inc.'s 'Motion to Strike, or Alternatively, for Judgment on the Pleadings' came before the Court for hearing on December 15, 2008. ... the Court GRANTS the Motion in part and DENIES the Motion in part.”
“The Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. ... The undersigned recommends that the Court grant the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as to its second, third, and fourth claims if the State of California does not retry Petitioner. The undersigned recommends that the Second Amended Petition be denied as to its first claim for relief.”
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ... After considering the papers and arguments in support of, and in opposition to, the Motion, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Plaintiffs claims.”
“The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs motion for class certification.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion. ... Plaintiff's Second claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Fourth claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Claim.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to all of Plaintiffs claims.”
“After consideration of the papers in support of, and opposition to, the Motion, and arguments advanced at the March 7, 2011, hearing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion in part.”
“For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. All of Plaintiffs' claims against all defendants in this case are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Incentive Payments are DENIED without prejudice.”
“For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff has failed to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to his rest and meal break claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to decertify the Meal and Rest Period Classes.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Adecco’s Motion in full and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion as follows:”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The reviewed assignments span federal criminal cases, motions to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, disability-access suits, immigration mandamus, wage-and-hour disputes, and contract cases.
- United States v. Andrew Left proceeded through a 2026 jury trial and remained pending for post-trial motions and sentencing in the retrieved docket.
- The duration figures cover only terminated cases and do not describe the full docket.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 6 |
| Sep 2022 | 3 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 2 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 7 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 11 |
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 Phillips: 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 Phillips with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Phillips, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Phillips's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace