Edward M. Chen
How Judge Chen rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Chen
Edward Milton Chen is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Chen received a commission on May 12, 2011. Judge Chen assumed senior status on May 17, 2022.
Judge Chen's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Chen, 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
Each party or side may file one summary judgment motion unless the court grants leave.
“Each party or side is limited to filing one summary judgment motion. Any party wishing to exceed this limit must request leave of the Court.”
Conferences
File the joint case management statement one week before the conference.
“The joint case management statement must be filed one week in advance of the case management conference date.”
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 Chen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Airlines for America v. San Francisco, he denied a partial motion to dismiss on associational-standing grounds, finding that the association could use one member to establish its preemption claim and that its requested disgorgement involved a simple accounting.
“For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss certain of Plaintiff's claims and its request for monetary relief.”
In Sloan v. Verily Life Sciences, Chen denied a motion to compel arbitration because the agreement excluded retaliation claims and did not clearly delegate the question of whether the exclusion covered Sloan's contract claim.
“At the very least, the language of the agreement does not express a ‘clear and unmistakable’ intent to delegate gateway arbitration questions for ‘claims for harassment, discrimination, retaliation, workers compensation, state disability insurance or unemployment insurance benefits, or representative actions for civil penalties filed under the California Private Attorneys General Act.’”
Procedural preferences
In Diva Limousine v. Uber, Chen granted the motion to dismiss in part: he allowed amendment of the jurisdictional and UCL pleading defects, dismissed the UPA claim with prejudice, and denied Diva's partial summary judgment motion without prejudice.
“Uber's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, (1) Diva's complaint is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with leave for Diva to amend ...; (2) Diva's UPA claim is dismissed with prejudice; and (3) Diva's claim under the ‘unfair’ prong of the UCL unfairness claim is dismissed to the extent it is predicated on Sherman Act violations, with leave for Diva to amend within 30 days.”
In Brown v. West Coast-Hegenberger Properties, Chen vacated an entry of default. He found no intentional failure to answer, a potentially meritorious defense that the defendant did not own the alleged incident property, and no prejudice from reopening the case beyond a short delay.
“Nothing indicates that Defendant’s failure to answer was intentional. Defendant also has meritorious defenses available: Defendant asserts that it does not own the property on which Plaintiff currently alleges the vehicle robbery occurred. Finally, the case is still in its very initial stages. There is no prejudice to Plaintiff from reopening the case beyond a slight delay, which is legally insufficient under the Ninth Circuit’s precedent.”
In a challenge to a magistrate judge’s discovery order, Chen applied clear-error or contrary-to-law review and rejected objections that did not meet that standard.
“Here, the government has failed to show that Judge Kim acted contrary to law or that she clearly erred.”
In a self-represented civil-rights case, he permitted another amendment where more facts about the arrest could still cure the complaint.
“On amendment, Plaintiff may be able to plead in greater detail the circumstances leading up to the arrest”
Cautions
In Woods v. Vector Marketing Corp., he granted in part and denied in part the employer’s motion for partial summary judgment on wage claims.
“For the foregoing reasons, and as discussed on the record, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Vector's motion for partial summary judgment.”
In the reviewed housing case, a further amendment was refused after the amended complaint and proposed replacement failed to cure pleading defects.
“Plaintiff’s prior amendment and his proposed second amendment demonstrate that leave to amend is futile in this case.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Uber's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, (1) Diva's complaint is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with leave for Diva to amend ...; (2) Diva's UPA claim is dismissed with prejudice; and (3) Diva's claim under the ‘unfair’ prong of the UCL unfairness claim is dismissed to the extent it is predicated on Sherman Act violations, with leave for Diva to amend within 30 days.”
“Diva's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice.”
“For the aforementioned reasons, the Court DENIES the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss certain of Plaintiff's claims and its request for monetary relief.”
“For the foregoing reasons, and as discussed on the record, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Vector's motion for partial summary judgment.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendants ASCO and Tya Modeste’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Court GRANTS Defendant Razan Ghishan’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.”
“the Court hereby DENIES the motion to dismiss or compel arbitration.”
“The Court therefore denies the motion to reconsider.”
“Because the Court is denying Mr. Firsov’s motion to reconsider, his motion to transfer (to the District of New Jersey) is moot.”
“Defendant’s motion to vacate entry of default is therefore GRANTED.”
“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a third amended complaint”
“The Court accordingly grants CFO Rick’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate and Recuse is DENIED.”
“the Court grants in part and denies in part Mr. Campbell’s fee motion. Mr. Campbell is awarded $3,412.00 in attorneys’ fees.”
“Neuron’s summary judgment motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Blue Cubed’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sample covers cases filed from 2016 through 2019 during Chen's district-judge service. It includes aviation torts, racketeering, post-conviction and prison-conditions matters, civil-rights claims, fraud, and criminal cases. The durations measure filing to termination, not motion-to-ruling time.
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 | 32 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 53 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 32 | 53 |
| Sep 2025 | 24 | 62 |
| Mar 2025 | 32 | 66 |
| Sep 2024 | 34 | 59 |
| Mar 2024 | 40 | 50 |
| Sep 2023 | 7 | 37 |
| Mar 2023 | 22 | 30 |
| Sep 2022 | 2 | 35 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 36 |
| Sep 2021 | 26 | 54 |
| Mar 2021 | 22 | 58 |
| Sep 2020 | 17 | 42 |
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 Chen: 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 Chen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Chen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Chen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace