Claudia Ann Wilken
How Judge Wilken rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Wilken
Claudia Ann Wilken is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Wilken received a commission on November 22, 1993. Judge Wilken assumed senior status on December 17, 2014.
Judge Wilken's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Wilken, 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
Motions
Absent permission, all dispositive motions in a case are briefed and heard together by the dispositive motion cutoff.
“Absent permission from the Court, all case-dispositive motions in a case will be briefed and heard 9 together, on the case-dispositive motion hearing cut-off date, or on an earlier available date agreed to by the parties.”
Discovery
After meeting and conferring, submit a joint discovery letter of no more than eight pages; disputes go to a magistrate judge.
“Discovery disputes will be referred to a Magistrate Judge. After 1 the parties have met and conferred, the parties shall prepare a joint letter of not more than eight (8) pages explaining the”
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 Wilken decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the SRAM antitrust litigation, Wilken let the indirect purchasers' damages expert testify because limits in the data he used went to the weight of his analysis and did not establish that it was unreliable.
“These limitations may impact the weight of Dr. Dwyer's evidence, but they do not clearly indicate that his analysis is unreliable.”
Procedural preferences
In Ubiquiti Networks v. Kozumi, Wilken declined to modify an asset-freeze injunction after the defendants offered no new information undermining the original basis for the order.
“They present no new information to undermine the Court’s original reasons for issuing the preliminary injunction”
Cautions
In objections to continuing an approved college-athlete settlement, the court declined to rewrite its terms and noted that claims outside the agreement’s release could be brought separately.
“The Court does not have the ability to modify the SA”
In the SRAM antitrust litigation, Wilken decertified the Tennessee indirect-purchaser class because its sole named representative could not show that defendants supplied SRAM in either modem he purchased.
“Warner cannot establish his standing through this purchase”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court denies Totah's motion to remand, Docket No 25, and denies Bies' motion to dismiss, Docket No. 10.”
“Therefore, dismissal of Totah's complaint against Bies pursuant to the statute of limitations is unwarranted. ... The Court denies Totah's motion to remand, Docket No 25, and denies Bies' motion to dismiss, Docket No. 10.”
“Chase's motion to dismiss is granted. Mortimer's FCRA, CCRAA and UCL claims are dismissed with leave to amend to allege an actual factual inaccuracy.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Docket No. 12). Dismissal, however, is with leave to amend for Plaintiff to remedy this deficiency, if it can truthfully do so.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 40) and DENIES Defendants' motion to modify the preliminary injunction (Docket No. 84).”
“Based on the foregoing, this case is dismissed. Dismissal is without prejudice to refiling if Plaintiff obtains representation by an attorney.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 4, 21, 40, 41, 45, 70, 83). The dismissal is without leave to amend and without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate jurisdiction or jurisdictions.”
“grants in part the motion to dismiss.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS without prejudice Gorall's Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Docket No. 39),”
“GRANTS in part Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and DENIES it in part (Docket No. 42)”
“Thus the Court DENIES the joint motions to exclude Dr. Levy's expert opinion, Docket No. 1052, and to exclude Dr. Dwyer's expert opinion, filed under seal pursuant to the Court's order, Docket No. 1083.”
“The Court also DENIES the motion to decertify the DP Plaintiff class. The Court GRANTS the motion to decertify the Tennessee IP Plaintiff class, and in all other respects DENIES the motion to decertify the IP classes.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the CPUC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 284) and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) (Docket No. 348) and motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 358).”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED (Docket No. 8). Dismissal is without leave to amend, because no additional allegations could cure the deficiencies identified above.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part Adobe's motion to dismiss and DENIES it in part (Docket No. 55) and DENIES Defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction (Docket No. 68).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- As a senior judge in Oakland, Wilken has a concentrated but high-profile caseload that includes NCAA antitrust litigation, post-conviction petitions, civil-rights claims, stockholder suits, and contract disputes.
- The durations below come from a sample of cases filed from 2018 through 2020 that later terminated, rather than a complete count; the NCAA name-image-and-likeness litigation lasted about five years.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 14 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 2 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Wilken: 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 Wilken with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Wilken, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Wilken's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace