Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
How Judge Gilliam rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Gilliam
Haywood Stirling Gilliam, Jr. is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Gilliam received a commission on December 19, 2014.
Judge Gilliam's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Gilliam, 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
After a good faith effort fails to resolve a discovery dispute, file a joint letter of no more than five pages.
“If the parties cannot resolve their discovery dispute after a good faith effort, they shall prepare and 5 file a joint letter of no longer than five pages stating the nature and status of their dispute.”
Conferences
To move a scheduled case date, file a joint statement of no more than three pages showing particularized good cause.
“Once the Court has entered a case schedule, the parties may not move the dates 19 except by Court order. If the parties seek to move one of these dates, the parties must file a joint 20 statement of no more than three pages proving particularized good cause for the requested change.”
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 Gilliam decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At preliminary settlement approval, he checks for informed non-collusive negotiation, preferential treatment, whether the result falls within the possible approval range, and obvious deficiencies before approving notice to a class.
“Courts may preliminarily approve a settlement and notice plan to the class if the proposed settlement: (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) does not grant improper preferential treatment to class representatives or other segments of the class;”
Procedural preferences
In the H-1B fee case, he denied provisional class certification without prejudice after granting interim relief because a certified class was unnecessary to issue that injunction.
“Certification is not required for the Court to enter the requested preliminary injunction, which it”
In the Capital One merger case, he denied an injunction aimed at an acquisition absent from the operative complaint because the requested interim relief had no nexus to the pleaded claims.
“A plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction based on claims not pled in the complaint.”
Cautions
After repeated amendment opportunities, he may deny further leave where a theory still lacks a required element, while allowing other adequately pleaded claims in the same complaint to proceed.
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ FAL claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. See Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is ‘particularly broad’ where leave to amend has previously been granted).”
In True Health Chiropractic’s fax-advertising case, he denied renewed class certification after finding that online-fax recipients could not be separated from the proposed class through common proof.
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons noted above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss the UCL claim.”
“Because it appears likely that Colorado River controls, and because neither party addresses that standard in the motion to stay, the Court DENIES that motion. This denial is without prejudice to Defendant refiling a motion addressing the factors the Ninth Circuit has identified...”
“The Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and based on forum non conveniens.”
“The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court DENIES the motion with respect to Plaintiff Heuchan's claims. The Court GRANTS [the motion as to the remaining claims]... Teint foundation products are DISMISSED without leave to amend.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for class certification is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file.”
“The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Clerk is directed to close the case.”
“Because the Arbitration Agreement is valid and enforceable, and Plaintiff's claims undisputedly fall within its scope, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. This action is hereby STAYED pending resolution of the arbitration.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to remand and REMANDS the case to Sonoma Superior Court. The clerk is directed to remand the case and close the file.”
“Defendants were not served with the complaint until August 3, 2016. Defendants' removal of this action on September 2, 2016 is therefore timely. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for remand.”
“the Court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss the action as time-barred. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.”
“the Court GRANTS the motion and REMANDS the case to the California Superior Court for Alameda County.”
“Plaintiff has failed to make the showing required under Rule 59(e) and the local rules. ... As a result, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.”
“Plaintiff has not met his burden for certification. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion, Dkt. No. 37.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed Oakland cases include prisoner, habeas, disability-access, insurance, securities, employment, and trademark matters. An earlier short May 2022 filing sample contained additional case types. Both slices are selected and provide context rather than a caseload-wide mix.
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 | 6 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 3 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 6 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 11 | 11 |
| Mar 2025 | 4 | 10 |
| Sep 2024 | 3 | 12 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 11 |
| Sep 2023 | 11 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 5 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 12 | 9 |
| Mar 2022 | 10 | 13 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 21 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 57 | 11 |
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 Gilliam: 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 Gilliam with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Gilliam, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Gilliam's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace