Maxine M. Chesney
How Judge Chesney rules, drawn from 41 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Chesney
Maxine M. Chesney is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Chesney received a commission on May 10, 1995. Judge Chesney assumed senior status on June 30, 2009.
Judge Chesney's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Chesney, 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
Motions
Parties filing or opposing motions must also serve and file a proposed order stating requested relief and a short rationale.
“Each party filing or opposing a motion shall also serve and file a proposed order setting forth the relief or action sought and a short statement of the rationale of decision, including citation of authority, that the party requests the Court to adopt.”
Motions
The court normally addresses only one summary judgment or adjudication motion per party or side absent leave.
“Unless specific leave has been requested and granted, the Court will address only one motion for summary judgment/adjudication per party or side.”
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 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
In Saloojas, Inc. v. Blue Shield of California, she granted the dismissal motion while allowing amendment of three claims.
“Blue Shield's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, with leave to amend Claims III, IV, and VI.”
In Baglieri v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, she granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the court action pending arbitration.
“Accordingly, MBUSA's motion to compel arbitration is hereby GRANTED, and the instant action is hereby STAYED pending completion of arbitration proceedings.”
Cautions
In LegalForce RAPC’s arbitration dispute, Chesney denied leave to seek reconsideration because the plaintiff had not previously raised its Terms of Use argument, so the court had not failed to consider it.
“LegalForce RAPC cannot show, however, that the Court failed to consider any argument based on Clause 15, as no such argument was made.”
In Martinez v. Curry, she denied the habeas petition and a certificate of appealability.
“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.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“For the reasons stated above, Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.”
“U.S. Bank's motion is hereby GRANTED and the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without leave to amend.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby DENIED. A certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED.”
“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.”
“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.
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 | 12 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 7 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 12 | 7 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 8 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 40 |
| Mar 2024 | 5 | 41 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 42 |
| Mar 2023 | 3 | 38 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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 Chesney: 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 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