Richard G. Seeborg
How Judge Seeborg decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Enforces the summary-judgment burden: in a defamation case, requires the plaintiff to come forward with evidence of falsity, and derivative claims rise and fall with the defamation theory.
“Plaintiffs having failed to produce evidence of any genuine dispute of fact as to the truth of Defendants' statements, their defamation claims necessarily fail as a matter of law--and with them, Plaintiffs' derivative claims also fail. Defendants' summary judgment motion is therefore granted.”
Procedural preferences
Gives plaintiffs and relators a real chance to cure on amendment, denying a renewed Rule 9(b) motion to dismiss once the added detail states colorable claims and deferring whether the record can ultimately prove them.
“The TAC has remedied the deficiencies previously identified in the FAC and now includes sufficient details to aver a fraudulent scheme under the FCA and the CFCA... Relator has stated colorable claims. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.”
Cautions
Declines to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, treating them as forfeited.
“[Defendant] forfeited its Rule 12(b)(6) argument by raising the argument for the first time in the reply brief. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied as to both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The TAC has remedied the deficiencies previously identified in the FAC and now includes sufficient details to aver a fraudulent scheme under the FCA and the CFCA... Relator has stated colorable claims. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend only with regard to quiet title, breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.”
“Plaintiffs having failed to produce evidence of any genuine dispute of fact as to the truth of Defendants' statements, their defamation claims necessarily fail as a matter of law--and with them, Plaintiffs' derivative claims also fail. Defendants' summary judgment motion is therefore granted.”
“[Defendant] forfeited its Rule 12(b)(6) argument by raising the argument for the first time in the reply brief. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied as to both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).”
“For the aforementioned reasons, KLG's special motion to strike is denied.”
“Its motion to dismiss the fifth claim in plaintiffs' complaint is granted as to plaintiffs' allegations of malpractice without leave to amend, and with leave on the claim that KLG aided and abetted breach of fiduciary duty.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Seeborg's docket caseload. His San Francisco docket is broad: civil rights (Barrera v. Oakland PD), ADA access (Goodwin v. 7-Eleven), habeas (Chavez v. Matteson), False Claims Act qui tam (US v. 1850 Bryant Land), copyright (Crisman v. Celona), fraud (Graham-Loy v. Clear Recon), trade secrets (Osborne Partners v. Whisler), and SEC enforcement (SEC v. Mata; SEC v. Block Bits Capital). A large share of his civil docket -- ADA-access, wage-and-hour, consumer, ERISA and insurance matters -- resolves by stipulated dismissal or mediated settlement rather than a dispositive-motion ruling. Durations below are from a sample of terminated dockets.
Put Judge Seeborg's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Seeborg actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Seeborg's own signed orders and cites them.