Susan Yvonne Illston

United States District Court for the Northern District of California district Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 14 signed orders read

How Judge Illston decides

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

What persuades

She resolves civil-rights and coverage disputes on the defendants' merits summary-judgment motions and enters judgment promptly once the merits are decided.

“Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted. Judgment is entered accordingly in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.”

Procedural preferences

Illston prefers curing a technical service defect over dismissal: faced with a Rule 12(b)(5) motion she denied it and ordered the defendant to serve a proper paper copy within ten days rather than penalize the procedural error, resolving the matter on the papers.

“Therefor, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff's motion to dismiss and ORDERS defendant to properly serve plaintiff with a paper copy by mail within 10 days of the date of this order.”

She accommodates pro se litigants on amendment deadlines -- granting leave to amend within a set period -- while denying their meritless ancillary motions as without merit.

“The Court GRANTS plaintiff's request to amend the complaint, and if plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint he must do so no later than January 5, 2009... The Court DENIES the balance of plaintiff's motions as without merit. (Docket Nos. 54-57).”

Signed rulings

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

Gehman v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America
3:07-cv-02381-SI · 2008-03-06
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Summary judgment is granted for defendants and against plaintiff. Judgment is entered accordingly.”

Ray v. Hobbs / Child Protective Services
3:09-cv-00252-SI · 2011-02-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motions for summary judgment are granted. Judgment is entered accordingly in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.”

Starski v. corePHP, LLC
3:11-cv-03740-SI · 2012-07-02
Motions to dismiss (plaintiff) Denied

“Therefor, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff's motion to dismiss and ORDERS defendant to properly serve plaintiff with a paper copy by mail within 10 days of the date of this order.”

Balu v. Lake County
3:08-cv-03014-SI · 2008-12-29
Motion for leave to amend (plaintiff) Granted

“The Court GRANTS plaintiff's request to amend the complaint, and if plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint he must do so no later than January 5, 2009... The Court DENIES the balance of plaintiff's motions as without merit. (Docket Nos. 54-57).”

Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc.
3:23-cv-06012-SI · 2024-07-23
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion as to the Lanham Act claim without leave to amend and DENIES defendants’ motion as to the copyright infringement and trade dress misappropriation claims.”

Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc.
3:23-cv-06012-SI · 2025-09-02
Daubert motion (both) Granted in part

“the motions to exclude the reports and offered testimony of experts Malek, Putnam, Kong, and Kelly are DENIED. Dkt Nos. 625, 627, 634, 642. The motions to exclude the reports and offered testimony of experts Shamos, Jones, Almeroth, Pooley, and Teece are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, as explained above.”

Queiros v. Target Corporation
3:17-cv-03174-SI · 2017-08-17
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to remand this case Alameda County Superior Court, DENIES AS MOOT Target’s motion to dismiss, and DENIES plaintiff’s request for fees.”

David v. George Chiala Farms, Inc.
3:24-cv-04040-SI · 2024-12-18
Preliminary injunction (plaintiff) Denied

“For the reasons stated above, plaintiff’s motion for a TRO (Dkt. No. 24) is DENIED.”

Hunt v. Sunrise Operations LLC
3:23-cv-06441-SI · 2025-01-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“The Court DENIES MEBA’s motion to dismiss the claims against it from the Third Amended Complaint.”

McCurty v. Madsen
3:21-cv-05435-SI · 2026-04-03
Daubert motion (both) Granted in part

“The motions to exclude the reports and offered testimony of experts Goodall and Diaz are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, as explained above.”

Gatlin v. Contra Costa County
3:21-cv-00370-SI · 2024-08-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The Court now GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motions to dismiss.”

Saxton v. County of Sonoma
3:21-cv-09499-SI · 2025-06-17
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Saxton plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims against Sheriff Essick on the basis of qualified immunity, and GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Estate’s negligence claims for failure to file a tort claim. The Court DENIES the balance of defendants’ motion, finding there are triable issues of fact.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Although Illston took senior status in 2013, she continues to carry a broad San Francisco caseload that includes police and other civil-rights matters, copyright and patent disputes, employment, product liability, consumer credit, immigration and administrative-review cases, and federal criminal matters. The durations below come from terminated cases in a 2021 filing sample rather than a complete count.

Put Judge Illston's record to work

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

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