Edward J. Davila
How Judge Davila rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Davila
Edward John Davila is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Davila received a commission on March 3, 2011. Judge Davila assumed senior status on December 11, 2024.
Judge Davila's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Davila, 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
Attach a redline showing changes to every amended complaint.
“All amended complaints shall attach as an exhibit a red-line document showing the changes made to the previously filed complaint.”
Motions
File and notice motions within 14 calendar days after reserving a hearing date.
“Motions must be filed and noticed within 14 calendar days of reserving a hearing date with Judge Davila’s Courtroom Deputy.”
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 Davila decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Sicre de Fontbrune v. Wofsy, Davila declined to recognize the 2012 foreign money judgment after finding it repugnant to U.S. public policy under the statutory recognition rule.
“The court grants Defendants' motion because the 2012 Judgment is repugnant to U.S. public policy under Sec. 1716(c)(3). The court will not recognize the 2012 Judgment.”
In Apple’s trade secret suit, he found good cause for expedited discovery after considering the risk that relevant forensic records could be lost, while limiting the requested scope.
“In sum, after considering the five factors, the Court finds that there is good cause to grant a more limited version of Apple’s Narrowed Requests.”
In the Spring Fertility tracking suit, Davila let the California constitutional privacy claim proceed at the pleading stage because disclosure of a patient’s specific fertility treatment could plausibly be highly offensive and harmful.
“The Court therefore cannot conclude as a matter of law that no reasonable jury would find Spring Fertility’s conduct to be an egregious breach of social norms or incapable of creating serious harm.”
Procedural preferences
In De Leon v. Mastria, he dismissed the only federal claim without prejudice and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, also dismissing them without prejudice.
“in light of the parties' apparent agreement but mindful of the mandatory nature of FLSA, the Court will DISMISS Plaintiff's FLSA claim WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Having dismissed Plaintiffs' only federal law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. These claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
In Challenge Printing v. Electronics for Imaging, he denied dismissal of the first cause of action, dismissed the next four, and granted leave to amend because amendment would not be futile.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART EFI's motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss the first cause of action is DENIED. The motion to dismiss the second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action is GRANTED and those claims are ordered DISMISSED. ... Challenge Printing is GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND the complaint.”
In one request to seal an entire case record, Davila required the movant to identify the governing legal standard and comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 before the court could determine whether any document was sealable.
“But Plaintiff does not articulate which legal standard the Court should apply to the motions. Nor does Plaintiff follow the instructions set out in Civil Local Rule 79-5.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“in light of the parties' apparent agreement but mindful of the mandatory nature of FLSA, the Court will DISMISS Plaintiff's FLSA claim WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... Having dismissed Plaintiffs' only federal law claim, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. These claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The court grants Defendants' motion because the 2012 Judgment is repugnant to U.S. public policy under Sec. 1716(c)(3). The court will not recognize the 2012 Judgment.”
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART EFI's motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss the first cause of action is DENIED. The motion to dismiss the second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action is GRANTED and those claims are ordered DISMISSED. ... Challenge Printing is GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND the complaint.”
“Pursuant to the parties' Joint Motion and good cause appearing therefore, this matter is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for a TRO at this time.”
“Because there is no basis for reconsideration, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s improperly renewed motion for class certification.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO/preliminary injunction is DENIED.”
“His motion for implementation of his TRO/preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendants’ administrative motion for extension of time to file a dispositive motion is GRANTED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Plaintiff will file the amended complaints by Tuesday, June 2, 2026.”
“For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions.”
“For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions for an injunction of SB 976’s”
“Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.”
“Consequently, Plaintiff’s Motions are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The June 2026 sample is dominated by newly filed criminal cases, immigration and detention matters, habeas petitions, and new civil disputes, which is expected for a judge who recently took senior status. Older terminated cases include securities, commercial-contract, prisoner civil-rights, habeas, and criminal-fraud matters. The durations below come from terminated cases 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 | 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 | 23 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 23 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 22 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 30 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 38 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 34 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 29 |
| Mar 2023 | 24 | 21 |
| Sep 2022 | 13 | 17 |
| Mar 2022 | 13 | 14 |
| Sep 2021 | 8 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 9 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 5 |
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 Davila: 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 Davila with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Davila, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Davila's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace