Rita F. Lin

United States District Court for the Northern District of California district Appointed by Joe Biden (Democratic) 20 signed orders read

Signed rulings

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

Deivaprakash v. Conde Nast Digital
3:25-cv-04021-RFL · 2025-09-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion.”

Shlapatskyi v. YouTube, LLC
3:26-cv-00279-RFL · 2026-05-18
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.”

Motion for leave (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Substitute Exhibits and to File Supplemental Evidence (Dkt. Nos. 24, 25) are DENIED.”

Paperno v. Whirlpool Corporation
3:23-cv-05114-RFL · 2023-12-14

Putative consumer class action. This order grants the parties' stipulated enlargement of time to complete briefing on Whirlpool's motion to dismiss -- a pure scheduling and case-management order.

Knapps v. Geo Group, Inc.
3:24-cv-03439-RFL · 2025-03-24

Sua sponte order to show cause directing a pro se plaintiff to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to the defendant's pending motion to dismiss after the opposition deadline passed. No motion was decided here; it shows she gives pro se litigants a chance to cure a missed deadline before ruling.

Navarro Barrera v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
3:25-cv-05260-RFL · 2025-09-22
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, this action does not lack complete diversity, so the motion is DENIED.”

Sanders v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
3:23-cv-04416-RFL · 2025-10-30
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Summary judgment is therefore DENIED as to Sanders' sexual orientation discrimination claim and Levels' race and gender discrimination claims.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Summary judgment is therefore GRANTED in favor of the District as to Sanders' gender-identity discrimination claim.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Summary judgment is GRANTED as to Sanders' and Levels' hostile work environment claims, which are time-barred.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Therefore, summary judgment as to Sanders' and Levels' retaliation claims is DENIED.”

S.G. v. Epic Games, Inc.
3:25-cv-02254-RFL · 2025-08-26
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“The motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. Defendants have submitted adequate proof that S.G. is bound by the End User License Agreement (‘EULA’) containing the arbitration provision.”

Nor-Cal Moving Services v. Paylocity Corp.
3:25-cv-02085-RFL · 2025-10-15
Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“The motion to strike is DENIED. Paylocity concedes that the allegations in question ‘could be used to support’ the breach of contract claim that the prior dismissal order did not address.”

Reeder v. Selene Finance, LP
3:23-cv-05986-RFL · 2024-08-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Accordingly, and for the reasons described in the Order, the federal claims (i.e., the FDCPA and FCRA claims) are dismissed with prejudice and the state law claims (i.e., the Business and Professions Code § 17100, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Elder Abuse claims) are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.”

Brown v. Auto Warehousing Co.
3:24-cv-07300-RFL · 2025-11-06
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“Brown's motion to remand is denied because federal court jurisdiction is proper under CAFA.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Brown's motion to remand is DENIED, Auto Warehousing's request for judicial notice is GRANTED, and Auto Warehousing's motion to dismiss is DENIED.”

Atkins v. Amplitude, Inc.
3:24-cv-04913-RFL · 2025-09-02
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“For the reasons stated below, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED, and the motion to dismiss is DENIED.”

Thakur v. Trump
3:25-cv-04737-RFL · 2026-01-30
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“The motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint is granted.”

Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“With respect to Plaintiffs' equal protection claim, the Motion for Provisional Class Certification and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED for the reasons explained above.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 222 days (N = 16).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 133 days (N = 1).

Lin's San Francisco caseload is a broad civil mix that includes consumer privacy and class actions, patents, antitrust, securities, employee benefits, employment and prisoner civil rights, habeas, insurance, consumer credit, environmental claims, and product liability. Many cases arrive after removal from state court or reassignment when the parties do not consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.

Put Judge Lin's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Lin actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Lin's own signed orders and cites them.