Phyllis J. Hamilton
How Judge Hamilton rules, drawn from 22 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hamilton
Phyllis Jean Hamilton is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Hamilton received a commission on May 25, 2000. Judge Hamilton assumed senior status on February 1, 2021.
Judge Hamilton's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hamilton, 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
Discovery
After unsuccessful email, letter, or phone efforts, confer face-to-face by video before seeking court relief for a discovery dispute.
“If meeting and conferring by email, letter, or phone call proves unsuccessful in resolving a discovery dispute, the parties must confer face-to-face by videoconference before seeking relief from the court.”
Discovery
File a joint discovery letter within ten business days after the video conference, limited to five pages.
“within ten business days of the videoconference, the parties must file a Joint Letter with the court. The Joint Letter may not exceed five pages.”
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 Hamilton decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In the WhatsApp fee dispute, she found fixed-fee agreements supported the reasonableness of the requested award without detailed time records.
“Thus, the court concludes that the fixed-fee agreements support the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ fee request, without any further need for detailed time records.”
Procedural preferences
In Oblena v. Zohrabi, she granted an unopposed motion to dismiss without prejudice and gave the plaintiff time to amend the complaint.
“On January 15, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in the above captioned action. Dkt. 20. ... For the reasons argued by defendants, the court GRANTS the motion without prejudice.”
In a prisoner civil-rights trial, the judge excluded a witness whom the defense had not disclosed in time for the plaintiff to depose. The lack of a deposition during discovery mattered to the decision.
“plaintiff was harmed by not being able to depose Blackman during the discovery period.”
Cautions
In Trimble Navigation v. RHS, she granted the defendants' summary-judgment motion on noninfringement in a short order issued before the pretrial conference.
“2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to non-infringement is GRANTED.”
In the reviewed prisoner civil-rights case, allegations that an officer directed an inmate attack did not survive summary judgment without evidence connecting the officer to the assailants.
“plaintiff’s allegations of Ford’s involvement with the attack simply rely on too much speculation.”
In the WhatsApp contempt dispute, Hamilton found the plaintiffs’ evidence did not meet the clear and convincing standard because the account-attribution declaration withheld details needed to evaluate it.
“the lack of specificity in the Blaich declaration prevents the court from being able to conclude that they have met the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“On January 15, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint in the above captioned action. Dkt. 20. ... For the reasons argued by defendants, the court GRANTS the motion without prejudice.”
“the court GRANTS defendants' motion to set aside default and DENIES defendants' motion to enlarge time to respond. Dkt. 24.”
“Because plaintiffs have moved to withdraw their motion for alternative service, the court DENIES plaintiffs' motion for alternative service. Dkt. 29.”
“1. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to both infringement”
“2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to non-infringement is GRANTED.”
“3. The motion to dismiss of defendants Garcia and Marquez (document 42) is GRANTED.”
“The motion for summary judgment by Moore (document 37) and that by Lewis, Hughes, and Pham (document 42) are GRANTED.”
“The issues having been duly heard and the court having granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment, it is Ordered and Adjudged that judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.”
“For the foregoing reasons, DePuy’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for express warranty is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the DePuy Defendants... And plaintiff’s eighth cause of action alleging a RICO violation is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the DePuy Defendants.”
“For the reasons set forth above, the court rules as follows: As to the first cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, FedEx’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to all plaintiffs... As to the eighth cause of action for failure to maintain payroll records, FedEx’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to all plaintiffs.”
“Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees is thus GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“In light of this non-opposition, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss defendants 9W Halo Holdings L.P., 9W Halo Parent LLC, KKR-VRS Credit Partners L.P., and KKR ILP LLC.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Dodgin’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s RICO claim (Claim 13) as alleged against Dodgin is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to include allegations establishing statutory standing and identifying with particularity Dodgin’s role and actions in the alleged enterprise; Dodgin’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s negligence claim (Claim 14) as alleged against Dodgin is DENIED; and Dodgin’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s battery claim (Claim 18) as alleged against Dodgin is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The Settlement Agreement submitted to the Court as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of David E. Mastagni, which is incorporated herein by reference, is approved as fair, reasonable and just in all respects as to the Plaintiffs... This Action is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
As a senior judge, Hamilton's 2026 assignments include numerous related pro se filings along with routine new civil cases. The terminated-case sample filed in 2020 includes consumer communications, patents, real-property and mortgage contracts, employment civil rights, prisoner civil rights, and federal tort or tax matters. The durations 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 | 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 11 | 6 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 2 |
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 Hamilton: 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 Hamilton with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hamilton, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hamilton's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace