Rita F. Lin

How Judge Lin rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Position
district
Appointed by
Joe Biden (Democratic)
Commissioned
2023-10-04
ABA rating
Well Qualified
Education
Harvard College (B.A.); Harvard Law School (J.D.)
Signed orders read
30

How Judge Lin decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

At the pleading stage, she construes a self-represented complaint liberally and allows a medical-care claim to proceed when the alleged conduct plausibly exceeds mere negligence.

“Plaintiff’s allegations, while not a perfect model of clarity, demonstrate more than just negligence to support a Fourteenth Amendment claim at this stage of the litigation.”

Procedural preferences

Leave to amend limits new claims and parties, but does not automatically bar new facts supporting an existing claim unless the prior order says so.

“the Motion to Dismiss Order only prohibited Plaintiffs from adding ‘new claims or parties’ without leave, it did not expressly prohibit Plaintiffs from adding new factual allegations to their existing claims.”

Cautions

A request for leave to amend made only in a footnote may be treated as waived.

“Plaintiffs request leave to amend in a footnote. (Dkt. No. 311 at 6 n. 1.) The request is waived.”

An ERISA fee complaint needs facts showing that proposed comparator plans are actually comparable, not merely similar in size.

“Though Clark need not compare ‘only Gala apples to Gala apples,’ she still must plausibly allege that the comparator plans are apples rather than oranges.”

A sur-reply request should identify genuinely new matter; additional immaterial facts or arguments that could have appeared in the opposition do not justify another brief.

“Cammas’s request to file a sur-reply is DENIED because the additional argument he wants to provide concerns either immaterial factual matters, points raised in Defendants’ opening brief that he could have addressed in his opposition brief, or arguments raised in Defendants’ reply brief that responded to points raised in the opposition brief.”

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

The order approved a stipulated briefing extension and is retained as procedural context without a classified motion outcome.

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

The order gave a self-represented plaintiff another opportunity to respond to a pending dismissal motion and is retained as procedural context without a classified outcome.

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.

Draft for Judge Lin with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lin, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Lin's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace