Jacqueline Scott Corley

How Judge Corley rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Position
district
Appointed by
Joe Biden (Democratic)
Commissioned
2022-03-30
Education
University of California, Berkeley (B.A., 1988); Harvard Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 1991)
Signed orders read
14

How Judge Corley decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In employment-discrimination cases with a developed factual basis she denies a defendant's motion to dismiss and to stay, letting the claims proceed to discovery.

“Tesla’s motions to dismiss and stay are DENIED.”

Procedural preferences

She applies Daubert rigorously and case-dispositively: excluding a plaintiff's essential expert opinion can leave no triable issue, after which she grants the defendant summary judgment.

“Apple's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Dkt. Nos. 196, 197.)”

Cautions

For large copyright portfolios, she requires the complaint to connect each asserted work to an allegedly infringing work; allegations about different works or platform-wide infringement do not substitute for substantial-similarity allegations.

“because Epidemic has not plausibly alleged any works on Meta’s platform are substantially similar to or exact copies of its 1,000 copyright-protected Works, Epidemic fails to state a direct infringement claim.”

In digital-privacy and wiretap-style class actions she dismisses claims that are time-barred or otherwise legally deficient at the pleading stage.

“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's CIPA claims as time barred. ... his CIPA claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and further leave to amend would be futile.”

She dismisses COVID-19 test-reimbursement suits that fail to state a plausible claim, typically granting leave to replead once before ending them.

“The Court granted Defendant's motions to dismiss in these five related cases and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file amended complaints on or before July 25, 2022. ... Accordingly, these five cases are DISMISSED.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Saloojas, Inc. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc.
3:22-cv-01704-JSC · 2022-08-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The Court granted Defendant's motions to dismiss in these five related cases and gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file amended complaints on or before July 25, 2022. ... Accordingly, these five cases are DISMISSED.”

Graham v. Central Garden & Pet Company
3:22-cv-06507-JSC · 2023-02-16
Motions to stay (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's motion is DENIED. This Order disposes of Docket No. 22.”

Reyes v. Apple, Inc.
3:22-cv-02900-JSC · 2025-04-28
Daubert motion to exclude (defendant) Granted

“Apple's motion to exclude Dr. Hahn's opinion is GRANTED”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Apple's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. (Dkt. Nos. 196, 197.)”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED as moot. (Dkt. No. 201.)”

Default-judgment damages determination (3:23-cv-01633-JSC)
3:23-cv-01633-JSC · 2024-08-28

Post-default damages determination: on review of plaintiff's revised general ledger and declaration, the Court found damages proved by a preponderance and awarded a sum certain plus previously-awarded fees/costs. This rules on the damages quantum, not on a contested party motion.

EEOC v. Tesla, Inc.
3:23-cv-04984-JSC · 2024-03-29
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“Tesla’s motions to dismiss and stay are DENIED.”

Motions to stay (defendant) Denied
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“The Commission’s motion to strike is DENIED as moot.”

Kamath v. United States Department of Homeland Security
3:23-cv-03531-JSC · 2024-03-12
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the City and County of San Francisco’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED with leave to amend except as to the assault claim.”

Pemberton v. Restaurant Brands International, Inc.
3:25-cv-03647-JSC · 2026-05-11
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's CIPA claims as time barred. ... his CIPA claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and further leave to amend would be futile.”

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. MH Sub I, LLC
3:24-cv-00669-JSC · 2026-05-13
Motion for attorneys fees (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant’s motion for fees is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff must pay Defendant $74,950 for its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred.”

Motion to retax costs (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff’s motion to retax costs is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff must pay Defendant $17,670.05 for costs incurred.”

Motions to stay (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to stay execution pending appeal.”

Tayts v. Gacutan
3:25-cv-03001-JSC · 2026-05-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Gacutan’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED without leave to amend, except that leave to amend is granted solely for her defamation claim based on Gacutan’s statements regarding filing back charges on Paypal and getting people banned on Discord.”

Eli Lilly and Company v. Mochi Health Corp.
3:25-cv-03534-JSC · 2026-04-20
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion to dismiss. Lilly plausibly alleges Article III standing as well as its claims under the UCL and Lanham Act; however, it has not plausibly alleged a civil conspiracy among the defendants.”

Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
3:25-cv-10355-JSC · 2026-07-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Meta’s motion to dismiss. However, because Epidemic may be able to allege facts regarding the infringing works, the Court grants Epidemic leave to amend”

Firsov v. Turkish Airlines Inc.
3:26-cv-00304-JSC · 2026-07-28
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Avianca’s motion to dismiss, without leave to amend, and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions and application.”

Application for entry of default (plaintiff) Denied

“given an entry of default is improper, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ application for entry of default.”

Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.”

Motion to disqualify (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion. The statute does not provide a procedural vehicle for a litigant to file a motion to disqualify a judge.”

Motion to transfer venue (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Given the Court already dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against Turkish Airlines–and, as of this Order, Plaintiffs’ claims against every defendant–the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion. Simply put, there is no case to transfer.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sample covers cases filed from April 2022 through December 2023, after Corley became a district judge. It includes civil-rights, labor, racketeering, securities-derivative, consumer communications, copyright, insurance, employee-benefits, and criminal matters. The durations measure filing to termination, not motion-to-ruling time.

Draft for Judge Corley with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Corley, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Corley's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace