Sallie Kim
How Judge Kim rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kim
Sallie Kim has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of California since July 2015. She earned a bachelor’s degree from Princeton University and a law degree from Stanford Law School.
Judge Kim's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kim, 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
Lodge an extra paper copy of each filing except the magistrate consent or declination.
“parties must lodge an extra paper copy of any filing, with the 8 exception of the written consent/declination to the assignment of a United States Magistrate Judge.”
Motions
Absent good cause, Judge Kim will address only one summary judgment motion per side and will not consider separate statements of undisputed facts.
“Absent of a showing of good cause, the Court will address only one motion for summary 21 judgment per side. Separate statements of undisputed facts will not be considered by the Court.”
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 Kim decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At trial, evidence concerning discrimination or harassment may be admitted for a narrow retaliation-related purpose while remaining unavailable to prove dismissed discrimination claims.
“There are no claims for discrimination or harassment in this case, and you are not being asked to decide whether discrimination or harassment occurred. I instruct you that this evidence is admitted only for the limited purpose of determining whether the Plaintiff reasonably believed she was reporting unlawful conduct”
Procedural preferences
In Navarro v. Apartment Management Consultants, she enforced an earlier ten-percent tenant-file sampling arrangement instead of requiring inspection at every property location.
“Defendant initially suggested the ten percent sampling of responsive documents, the tenants’ files, in order to reduce the burden on Defendant.”
Cautions
A document response stating that a reasonable and diligent search found nothing within the party's possession, custody, or control can satisfy Rule 34.
“Defendant has thus complied with Rule 34 in stating that responsive documents are not in its possession, custody, or control. Thus, the Court DENIES the motion to compel further responses.”
In a contract and fraud case, pleading unjust enrichment as an alternative did not by itself establish why a legal remedy would be inadequate.
“Merely pleading a claim in the alternative is not enough.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim's Report and Recommendation ... recommending dismissal of this case based on res judicata grounds. ... this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based on res judicata.”
“The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim's report and recommendation ... and her amended report and recommendation ... to grant Plaintiff RIC (San Leandro) LLC's motion for default judgment ... and adopts them in every respect. Default judgment against Defendant Miller is granted in the amount of $42,264,930.42.”
“On September 30, 2024, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim issued a Report and Recommendation that I dismiss this case without prejudice. ... I agree with Judge Kim's Report and Recommendation and adopt it in full. ... Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Magistrate's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED, except with respect to her recommendation to give an adverse inference instruction, which is REJECTED as premature. Plaintiff's Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction is DENIED without prejudice to renewal upon the Court's resolution of the admissibility of evidence pertaining to Defendant's relationship with Mr. Kelley.”
“the Court hereby DENIES Coinbase's motion to compel arbitration”
“the Court DENIES Coinbase's motion to compel arbitration and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Coinbase's alternative motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Therefore, the Court GRANTS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Coinbase's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' first claim ... in full and Plaintiffs' second claim ... and sixth claim ... to the extent they are is premised on a violation of Penal Code Section 320. The Court DENIES Coinbase's motion to dismiss as to the remainder of Plaintiff's claims.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Coinbase's and Marden-Kane's motions to dismiss. The Court GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' requests for injunctive relief, GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' CLRA claims 6 and 7 against both Defendants, and GRANTS WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' claims 1 and 5 to the extent they are premised on an unlawful lottery. The Court DENIES the remainder of both motions.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss.”
“The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to compel documents from Hochster.”
“The Court GRANTS the motion to compel response to interrogatories 4, 5 and 6 and ORDERS Defendants to provide that information by October 8, 2021. The Court DENIES the motion to compel production of documents in response to request No. 1.”
“Upon review of the discovery, the briefs of the parties, and the file of this action, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion to compel, as set forth below.”
“the Court denies Andrade's motion and grants AFF's motion regarding class certification. ... the Court DENIES Andrade's motion for class certification and GRANTS AFF's motion to deny class certification.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for a new trial in its entirety.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sample covers cases filed in 2022. As an initially assigned San Francisco magistrate judge, Kim handles a substantial False Claims Act caseload along with securities, disability-access, labor, civil-rights, federal tort, immigration, copyright, Social Security, employee-benefit collection, and public-records 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 | 10 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2022 | 6 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 5 | 6 |
| Sep 2021 | 4 | 3 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 6 | 1 |
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 Kim: 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 Kim with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kim, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kim's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace