Jon S. Tigar
How Judge Tigar rules, drawn from 31 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tigar
Jon Steven Tigar is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Tigar received a commission on January 18, 2013.
Judge Tigar's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Tigar, 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
Unless otherwise ordered, filing deadlines are at 5 p.m.
“All filing deadlines are at 5:00 p.m. unless otherwise ordered.”
Conferences
File a joint case management statement at least seven calendar days before the conference, without incorporating prior statements by reference.
“Parties are required to file a joint case management statement not less than seven calendar days before a scheduled case management conference, unless the Court sets a different deadline. Unless otherwise ordered, the parties’ statement must comply with the terms of the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California: Contents of Joint Case Management Statement. Parties must not incorporate prior case management statements by reference.”
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 Tigar decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Roshan v. McCauley, he dismissed the challenge to an ongoing state licensing proceeding without leave to amend after finding Younger abstention required him to decline jurisdiction.
“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
In Highgrade Tech v. OSD Audio, he granted a joint request to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against OSD Audio and Amazon with prejudice and terminated those two defendants.
“the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against OSD Audio and Amazon.com., Inc. with prejudice.”
In Iravanian v. TransPerfect, he granted reconsideration after finding that he had overlooked the plaintiff's stated intent to preserve a representative labor claim.
“The Court erred in overlooking this statement.”
A pending motion to dismiss or stay discovery did not itself suspend discovery on the operative complaint. In one case, the court required written discovery to proceed and rejected the defendant’s attempt to impose a stay through a protective-order request.
“NVIDIA’s conduct in not complying with its discovery obligations relating to the operative complaint is self-help.”
Cautions
In California v. Kraft Heinz, he remanded the state's public-nuisance and consumer-protection action after finding California was the real party in interest.
“Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted.”
After the deadline for amending pleadings, a plaintiff seeking to add a new claim must show diligence. A late amendment request failed where the plaintiff made no such showing.
“De Jong has not even attempted to show diligence, and his request for leave to amend is therefore denied.”
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.”
After the plaintiff failed to amend by the deadline set in an earlier dismissal order, Tigar dismissed the false-advertising action with prejudice and entered judgment. The order is retained as a procedural disposition rather than a new ruling on the earlier motion.
“the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against OSD Audio and Amazon.com., Inc. with prejudice.”
Before reaching cross-motions for summary judgment, Tigar raised Article III standing on his own initiative and required the removing defendant to explain why the case should not return to state court. No party motion was decided in this order.
“Accordingly, the motion for leave to seek reconsideration is granted.”
“Before the Court is Defendant LBF Travel's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Sergey Firsov's first amended complaint (‘FAC’). ECF No. 65. The Court will grant the motion.”
“Because Defendant has identified a federal claim under Section 301 of the LMRA, Harris's motion to remand is denied.”
“Accordingly, default judgment against Defendant Bella Thomas is granted.”
After the plaintiff missed the deadline to oppose summary judgment, Tigar required a response explaining the omission or a statement of non-opposition, vacated the reply and hearing dates, and warned that continued nonresponse could lead to treating the motion as unopposed or dismissing for failure to prosecute.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to transfer.”
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.
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 | 7 |
| 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 | 107 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 7 | 107 |
| Sep 2025 | 2 | 97 |
| Mar 2025 | 9 | 125 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 126 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 113 |
| Sep 2023 | 12 | 108 |
| Mar 2023 | 4 | 98 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 96 |
| Mar 2022 | 2 | 89 |
| Sep 2021 | 7 | 83 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 87 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 94 |
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 Tigar: 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 Tigar with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tigar, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tigar's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace