Jon S. Tigar
How Judge Tigar decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Grants a motion to dismiss without leave to amend where an abstention doctrine (e.g., Younger) bars the action.
“Commissioner McCauley's motion is granted. Because this action is barred by Younger abstention, the Court dismisses Roshan's complaint without leave to amend.”
Procedural preferences
Grants a stipulated or voluntary dismissal with prejudice and terminates the affected defendants.
“the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against OSD Audio and Amazon.com., Inc. with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate those two defendants as parties to this action.”
Cautions
Grants a motion to remand a State's parens patriae enforcement action, finding the State the real party in interest so no diversity or federal-officer basis supports removal.
“Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court will deny Roshan's motion for preliminary injunction, and grant Commissioner McCauley's motion to dismiss.”
“Commissioner McCauley's motion is granted. Because this action is barred by Younger abstention, the Court dismisses Roshan's complaint without leave to amend.”
“The court modifies its summary judgment order to only preclude an award of health and life insurance benefits.”
False-advertising consumer action. On 2021-06-30 Tigar had granted Whole Foods' motion to dismiss with leave to amend, warning that failure to timely amend would result in dismissal with prejudice. No amended complaint was filed, so this order dismisses the case with prejudice and enters judgment for defendants. This is a procedural disposition for failure to amend; the underlying MTD grant (ECF 37) was a separate order and is not recorded as a motion stat here.
“the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against OSD Audio and Amazon.com., Inc. with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate those two defendants as parties to this action.”
FCRA / California consumer-reporting removed action. Faced with cross-motions for summary judgment (defendant's MSJ at ECF 48, plaintiff's partial MSJ at ECF 46), Tigar did NOT rule on the merits; instead, sua sponte, he raised Article III standing (whether plaintiff suffered a concrete injury beyond a bare procedural FCRA violation under TransUnion/Spokeo) and ordered the removing defendant to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. No motion was decided here. He polices Article III standing on his own motion before reaching the merits, and shifts the burden to the party that invoked federal jurisdiction.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The June 2026 sample is dominated by newly filed criminal cases, an immigration-detention habeas petition, and civil disputes involving online platforms, housing technology, and student loans. Older terminated cases include employee-benefit collections, disability-access claims, mortgage and foreclosure disputes, copyright, and pro se civil-rights matters. The durations below come from terminated cases in the sample.
Put Judge Tigar's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Tigar actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Tigar's own signed orders and cites them.