P. Casey Pitts
How Judge Pitts rules, drawn from 38 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Pitts
Patrick Casey Pitts is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Pitts received a commission on July 7, 2023.
Judge Pitts's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Pitts, 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
File each motion, declaration, and exhibit as a separate searchable PDF.
“File each motion, supporting declaration, and exhibit on ECF as a separate searchable PDF with a clear name and description.”
Motions
Allow at least fourteen days between final briefing and a motion hearing.
“Allow at least 14 days between the final filing and the hearing.”
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 Pitts decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In this electronic transfer case, declined to count a transfer between the plaintiff’s own accounts as a benefit to her where the pleaded facts said fraudsters used it to facilitate later losses.
“Because the Court cannot conclude that Ramana received any benefit from the unauthorized intrabank transfers at issue here, Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss is denied.”
In Murek, Pitts found that the petitioner’s lawful entry, years of residence, and lack of a significant criminal record supported a hearing before any renewed immigration detention.
“all three of the Mathews factors favor providing him with a hearing prior to any deprivation of his liberty.”
In Garro Pinchi’s discovery dispute, Pitts compelled production of a government document after finding that its communications involved attorneys but offered no legal advice.
“With respect to GOV-00054670, the Court concludes that although the communications involve attorneys, no legal advice of any kind was being offered.”
Procedural preferences
In Z.A. v. Blanche, he denied the Justice Department's motion to stay a preliminary injunction pending appeal after finding it had not shown irreparable harm and that the other factors also weighed against a stay.
“That DOJ has not demonstrated irreparable harm flowing from the preliminary injunction is reason enough to deny its motion.”
Discovery relief requires compliance with the meet-and-confer prerequisite; a party that refuses discovery after the other side tries to confer may be compelled to respond.
“Even if Mr. Hartley's discovery motions were comprehensible, which they are not, his failure to comply with this threshold requirement would be fatal to his requests.”
For destroyed electronic evidence in this employment case, ordered an adverse inference instruction after finding prejudice, while declining to end the case as a sanction.
“The appropriate sanction under these circumstances is to provide jurors with an adverse inference instruction informing them that they may assume that the evidence that was destroyed would have been harmful to Smahi.”
Cautions
Offering late compliance does not necessarily eliminate compensatory civil sanctions for costs already caused by resisting a discovery order.
“Sanctions are nonetheless appropriate and warranted here. Even if the coercive purpose of sanctions has become less pressing, civil contempt and sanctions still serve a compensatory purpose by providing redress to those harmed by the conduct at issue.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation and the Court's September 18, 2023 order, the stay on discovery and disclosures in these cases is lifted.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the government's motion to dismiss.”
“Given the parties' agreement, confirmed at oral argument, that Mrs. Srigley is not in this action asserting any claims in her individual capacity, MPYC's motion is denied as moot.”
“Plaintiffs' claim under the UCL's unlawful prong for these alleged Section 25107 violations are therefore dismissed without leave to amend. The claim that this same conduct violates the UCL's unfair prong is dismissed with leave to amend for the reasons explained in Hoffman... North American's motion to dismiss Blisten's claims under both the unlawful and unfair prongs of the UCL is therefore denied to the extent they are based on this rider fee.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the City Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Dismissal is with leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed within 35 days of the date of this Order. If no amended complaint is filed, Mr. Casenas's claims against the City Defendants will be dismissed with prejudice.”
“Because Jump is not a party to Mr. Tobias's agreement with TFL and because Mr. Tobias's claims against Jump are not intertwined with that agreement, Jump's motion to compel arbitration of those claims is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Jump's Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED and Jump's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 21 days of the entry of this order and shall include a chart listing numerically each alleged false or misleading statement, the speaker, the date, and the arguments supporting plaintiffs' claim of falsity and scienter.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of SCU and denies Nghiem's Rule 56(d) motion. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.”
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment are DENIED. See Dkt. No. 35; Serrato Dkt. No. 50; Perez Dkt. No. 35.”
“Mr. Falcon's motion to file a sur-reply is GRANTED and his sur-reply was considered herein.”
“All motions regarding FLSA liability are denied... Plaintiffs' motions regarding defendants' alleged willful violations of employment law are denied... Ben Fitzgerald's motion to dismiss Russo's PAGA claim is denied.”
“The Court therefore grants summary judgment to defendants and dismisses Reddick's PAGA claims with prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendants' motion to dismiss and denies plaintiffs' motion to strike.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Amazon's motion is granted and this case shall be stayed.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled San Jose caseload includes technology, intellectual-property, consumer, patent, antitrust, privacy, government, and tax disputes. The duration figures come from terminated cases in the sample and are not a complete measure of his docket.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 16 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 16 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
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 Pitts: 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 Pitts with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Pitts, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Pitts's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace