Maxine M. Chesney

How Judge Chesney rules, drawn from 41 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
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1995-05-10
Education
University of California, Berkeley (B.A., 1964); University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law (J.D., 1967)
Signed orders read
41

How Judge Chesney decides

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

What persuades

She rejected a consumer-law safe-harbor defense when the cited agency guidance lacked the force of law.

“plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. ... To the extent Hill's Pet Nutrition's Ninth Affirmative Defense asserts plaintiffs' claims are barred by a safe harbor provided by the CPG, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.”

By contrast, a safe-harbor defense succeeded when state law and regulations specifically approved the same product designation challenged as misleading.

“The Court thus finds California Health and Safety Code § 13114(a) and the regulations promulgated thereunder constitute a safe harbor such that the use of the ‘smoke alarm’ descriptor cannot be condemned as false or misleading under the CLRA where, as here, the products have received approval to be sold as ‘smoke alarms.’”

Procedural preferences

Across the reviewed multi-claim dismissal orders, she distinguishes curable pleading gaps from legal defects that additional factual allegations cannot fix.

“Blue Shield's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, with leave to amend Claims III, IV, and VI.”

When a valid delegation and arbitration agreement governs, she sends threshold arbitrability questions to the arbitrator and stays the court action.

“Accordingly, MBUSA's motion to compel arbitration is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby STAYED pending completion of arbitration proceedings.”

Cautions

A motion for leave to move for reconsideration is denied absent the required showing; rehashing already-decided points does not warrant reconsideration.

“Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, LegalForce RAPC's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.”

On habeas review of a state parole denial she confines the inquiry to whether minimal procedural due process was afforded, denying the petition and a certificate of appealability where it was.

“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby DENIED. A certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED.”

Signed rulings

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

Moore, et al. v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., et al.
3:16-cv-07001-MMC · 2021-12-22
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. ... To the extent Hill's Pet Nutrition's Ninth Affirmative Defense asserts plaintiffs' claims are barred by a safe harbor provided by the CPG, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.”

Homem v. Intec Corporation, et al.
3:05-cv-00792-MMC · 2006-10-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES as moot APV's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, motion for summary judgment, and VACATES the hearing scheduled for December 1, 2006 on said motion.”

Chatman v. Early, et al.
3:03-cv-02820-MMC (PR) · 2007-11-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“On July 27, 2007, after the motion had been fully briefed, the Court granted in part and denied in part Chen's motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff's damages claims against Chen in his official capacity, on Eleventh Amendment grounds. The Court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff's damages claims against Chen in his individual capacity.”

Turner v. Tierney
3:12-cv-06231-MMC · 2013-03-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. To the extent the motion seeks dismissal of the Second through Sixth Causes of Action, the motion is hereby GRANTED, and the Second through Sixth Causes of Action are hereby DISMISSED; as to the Third through Fifth Causes of Action, said dismissal is with leave to amend. b. To the extent the motion seeks dismissal of the First Cause of Action, the motion is hereby DENIED.”

Russo v. Network Solutions, Inc.
3:07-cv-03401-MMC · 2008-04-10
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“NSI's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED to the extent NSI seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), and plaintiff's claims against NSI are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's refiling such claims in an appropriate forum.”

Kennedy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
3:11-cv-00675-MMC · 2012-07-09
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated above, Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.”

Enos v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
3:18-cv-06101-MMC · 2019-03-28
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“U.S. Bank's motion is hereby GRANTED and the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend.”

D.R., et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al.
3:19-cv-07152-MMC · 2022-04-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Stern's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED. If plaintiffs wish to file a Fourth Amended Complaint for purposes of amending the Fifth Cause of Action, plaintiffs shall file such amended pleading no later than April 22, 2022.”

United States v. Felder
3:14-cr-00536-MMC · 2017-02-09
Motion to suppress (defendant) Granted in part

“the motion to suppress is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: 1. To the extent defendant seeks to suppress (a) the paper sleeve and its contents, (b) the photocopies of licenses and identification cards found in the blue plastic box, (c) the savings bonds, and (d) the notebook, the motion is GRANTED. 2. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED on the merits, with the exception of the items seized pursuant to the federal search warrant, as to which the motion is DENIED as moot.”

Martinez v. Curry
3:07-cv-01813-MMC · 2011-04-11
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby DENIED. A certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED.”

Xiao v. Forshey
3:21-cv-02538-MMC · 2021-06-08
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“plaintiff's motion to remand is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda.”

Saloojas, Inc. v. Blue Shield of California Life and Health Insurance Company
3:22-cv-03267-MMC · 2022-10-03
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“Blue Shield's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, with leave to amend Claims III, IV, and VI.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The fixed case sample covers five matters filed in late 2018: insurance, trademark, education and employment civil-rights, and Social Security cases. The observed durations range from 85 to 515 days and measure filing to termination, not motion-to-ruling time.

Draft for Judge Chesney with the record in hand

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

Opens in Ezel Pro.

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