William B. Shubb
How Judge Shubb rules, drawn from 26 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Shubb
William B. Shubb is a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Judge Shubb received a commission on October 1, 1990. Judge Shubb assumed senior status on November 1, 2004.
Judge Shubb's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Shubb, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Motions
Before requesting a continuance in a civil or criminal case, counsel must check dates with the courtroom deputy.
“Before submitting any requests for continuance of any deadline or hearing date in both civil and criminal cases, counsel must first check dates with the courtroom deputy.”
Conferences
Counsel must personally attend in-court proceedings unless the court says otherwise.
“Counsel are required to personally appear at all in-court proceedings, unless otherwise notified by the Court.”
Conferences
The court currently offers no remote connection to its open-court proceedings.
“Because the courtroom is open to the public, no remote connections are available at this time.”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Shubb decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Rodriguez v. NBC Universal, Shubb dismissed several claims because the complaint incorporated allegations indiscriminately without connecting facts to each claim’s elements.
“As such, these causes of action fail to comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8.”
Procedural preferences
In a January 2026 immigration detention case, Judge Shubb found that an unexplained delay of nearly three months before seeking emergency relief defeated the requested temporary restraining order on irreparable-harm grounds. He did not reach the other injunction factors.
“Petitioner’s untimely filing is fatal to his motion for temporary restraining order.”
In the American Express case, unanswered requests for admission established contract liability and damages on summary judgment after the defendants did not seek to withdraw or amend the admissions.
“The Individual Defendants have not moved to withdraw or amend those admissions under Rule 36(b).”
In Magliocca v. United Healthcare Services, Shubb dismissed an amended website tracking complaint with prejudice after the plaintiff’s counsel said she had no further facts to cure the standing defect.
“When asked at the hearing whether plaintiff would be able to further amend her complaint to add any new factual allegations to cure the above deficiencies, counsel represented that she would not. Accordingly, the court will not permit further amendment.”
In Rodriguez v. NBC Universal, Shubb treated a second amended complaint as operative despite the lack of formal leave after finding its changes would not prejudice the defendants; their motion against the prior complaint became moot.
“the court does not find that permitting the SAC to proceed as operative would prejudice defendants.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 67) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the County's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 8) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiffs have thirty days from the date this Order is signed to file a First Amended Complaint, if they can do so consistent with this Order.”
“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) is denied.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 46) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling after the stay is lifted.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED; The Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 14, is DENIED; and ... The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication (Docket No. 93-1) be, and the same thereby is, DENIED as to Sinclair's First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Claims for damages, Harper's First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Tenth Claims, as well as Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion ... is GRANTED as to Sinclair's First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Claims for statutory penalties, as well as Plaintiffs' Fifth Claim for violations of Cal. Labor Code 2751(b) and 223, and Eighth Claim for violations of Cal. Labor Code 432.”
“2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part; and 3. This action will proceed only on plaintiff's retaliation claim against defendant Mayfield; summary judgment is granted for all other defendants on all remaining claims.”
“2. Defendant Racklin's motion for summary judgment, filed January 28, 2019 (ECF No. 38), is GRANTED; ... 4. This case is CLOSED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration of Plaintiff's Individual Claims, Dismiss the Putative Class Claims, and Stay the PAGA Claims (Docket No. 11) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' claim for injunctive and declaratory relief be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects defendant's motion to dismiss or strike be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss the Smart Complaint (Smart Docket No. 7) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED IN PART and GRANTED in PART. Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Smart Plaintiffs' claim for violations of the Sherman Act § 1 (Claim 1) and California's UCL as brought by Plaintiff Hacker under the unfair and unlawful prongs (Claim 4). Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED as to all other claims in the Smart Complaint.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss Counts One through Nine of the Indictment be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled Sacramento caseload includes prisoner and non-prisoner civil-rights actions, state-prisoner and immigration-detention habeas petitions, consumer-credit and reporting cases, employment disputes, disability-access suits, Social Security appeals, product-liability and lemon-law cases, copyright matters, and criminal cases. The reported durations come from terminated cases filed in 2018.
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 | 14 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 4 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 24 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 14 | 24 |
| Sep 2025 | 8 | 26 |
| Mar 2025 | 14 | 25 |
| Sep 2024 | 5 | 33 |
| Mar 2024 | 12 | 28 |
| Sep 2023 | 14 | 35 |
| Mar 2023 | 11 | 22 |
| Sep 2022 | 20 | 19 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 20 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 24 |
| Mar 2021 | 6 | 21 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 17 |
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 Eastern District of California, not for Judge Shubb: 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 | 2,984 | 8.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,029 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,899 | 9.1 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 36 | 29.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 20 | 50.5 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,984 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,575 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,528 | 10.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,624 | 11.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,316 | 9.9 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,319 | 9.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,562 | 10.3 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 Shubb with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Shubb, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Shubb's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace