Charles R. Breyer
How Judge Breyer rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Breyer
Charles R. Breyer is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Breyer received a commission on November 12, 1997. Judge Breyer assumed senior status on December 31, 2011.
Judge Breyer's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Breyer, 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
Discovery
File a notice of discovery dispute to initiate a magistrate referral instead of filing a discovery motion before Judge Breyer.
“counsel are required to file a notice of discovery 5 disputes to initiate a referral in lieu of filing discovery motions before this”
Conferences
Changes to the court schedule require a signed court order and good cause.
“No changes in the Court’s schedule shall be made except by signed 27 order of the Court and upon a showing of good cause.”
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).
How Judge Breyer decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At class certification, finds the fraud on the market reliance presumption unrebutted where the defendant's evidence does not establish that the alleged statements lacked market impact.
“Musk’s rebuttal evidence is insufficient to rebut the Basic presumption at this stage, so class-wide reliance is presumed.”
Procedural preferences
On review of a magistrate's discovery order, asks whether the material may lead to relevant evidence under Rule 26 and keeps admissibility for trial.
“the question here is whether the requested discovery would lead to relevant evidence under Rule 26, not whether the evidence is admissible.”
Cautions
An ongoing private organization inquiry did not make a fair procedure claim ripe when the plaintiff had suffered no loss of membership benefits or privileges; the court allowed amendment to plead another viable injury.
“Dr. Weiss has suffered no termination or suspension of any benefits or privileges.”
In the reviewed multidistrict subpoena dispute, the court temporarily protected potential-client questionnaire and attorney-agent communications while a magistrate judge resolved subpoena objections. It did not extend the order to Meta account data that the moving parties said lacked the same sensitive content.
“such communications are squarely protected by the attorney-client privilege.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court finds the Report correct, well-reasoned, and thorough, and ADOPTS it in every respect. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.”
“defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) on grounds that plaintiff failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit is GRANTED and, pursuant to the law of the circuit, plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED.”
Removed breach-of-contract/fraud action. After the defendant filed a motion to dismiss (dkt. 12, filed 2024-12-12) and the plaintiff failed to file any opposition by the 2024-12-26 deadline, Breyer issued a sua sponte order to show cause why the case should not be terminated for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), and vacated all hearing dates/deadlines on the MTD pending a response. No motion was decided here. He promptly polices litigant inaction, converting an unopposed dispositive motion into a Rule 41(b) failure-to-prosecute OSC rather than summarily granting it. The order recites that the MTD was filed 2024-12-12, which can ground a cross-source latency once the MTD is actually ruled on.
“Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims is GRANTED.”
“Summary judgment is therefore GRANTED to Defendant.”
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, the motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss the TAC WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants AAO’s motion to dismiss. Because it is possible that Dr. Weiss could allege facts that give rise to a valid cause of action against AAO, the Court grants Dr. Weiss leave to amend his complaint.”
“The Court denies Dr. Weiss’s motion for a preliminary injunction.”
“their motions to dismiss are hereby GRANTED and the case DISMISSED without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- The sampled dockets span pro se 'v. United States' actions, a civil forfeiture in rem, an SEC securities-enforcement action, a diversity product-liability suit, an ADA access suit, and Volkswagen 'Clean Diesel' MDL member actions.
- The contested matters typically resolved by settlement (Bettencourt v. Sharkninja settled on the eve of a March 2025 jury trial; the Two Condominiums forfeiture settled in January 2023) or by transfer into a multidistrict proceeding (Moon v. Generac transferred to the Generac MDL in the Eastern District of Wisconsin).
- Durations below are from eight terminated civil dockets in the sample.
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 | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 340 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 340 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 253 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 225 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 172 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 140 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 138 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 133 |
| Sep 2022 | 8 | 123 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 143 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 178 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 190 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 150 |
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 Northern District of California, not for Judge Breyer: 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 | 6,017 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 2,955 | 5.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,978 | 7.6 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 1,052 | 15 months |
| Closed during trial | 32 | 36.9 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 6,017 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 9,248 | 20.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 5,452 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 9,464 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2021 | 6,437 | 6.3 months |
| Sep 2020 | 6,881 | 11.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,640 | 8.7 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 Breyer with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Breyer, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Breyer's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace