Susan G. van Keulen
How Judge Keulen rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Keulen
Susan G. van Keulen has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in San Jose for the Northern District of California since 2017. She earned her bachelor's degree from the University of California, Davis, and her law degree from UCLA School of Law.
Judge Keulen's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Keulen, 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
Motions
A party may file only one summary judgment or summary adjudication motion unless the court permits otherwise.
“Unless otherwise permitted by the Court, only one Motion for Summary Judgment, Partial Summary Judgment, or Summary Adjudication may be filed by each party.”
Conferences
Request a remote appearance by administrative motion at least five days before the hearing.
“The requesting party must file an administrative motion to appear by Zoom video link or telephonic link at least 5 days before the hearing.”
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 Keulen decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Ingle v. Criteo, she struck the plaintiff's motion to compel because it was filed months after the discovery-motion deadline without an extension.
“If Plaintiff wanted an extension of the deadline to file a motion to compel, he needed to request and obtain it from the Court. He did not do so.”
She treated new pleading-stage arguments first raised in a reply as waived, while leaving open the possibility that they could be raised later when proper.
“Thus, the Government has waived these arguments at the pleading stage (although it may raise these challenges, as appropriate, at a later stage).”
Following a discovery hearing, she warned that court-set deadlines are mandatory and directed counsel to provide tailored, good-faith discovery responses.
“Deadlines set by Court Order are not merely aspirational but are mandatory.”
Cautions
She declined dispositive discovery sanctions where no earlier sanction or warning had been imposed, instead ordering further discovery and monetary sanctions.
“Here, however, the Court has not previously imposed sanctions against Defendants, and Defendants have not been warned that noncompliance may result in dispositive sanctions.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen's Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and DENIES the application, and DISMISSES the action due to Plaintiff's failure to keep the Court informed as to his current address.”
“Judge van Keulen's recommendation will be adopted in part; the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and without leave to amend.”
“the Court hereby adopts Judge van Keulen's Report & Recommendation except that the Court dismisses the case without prejudice ... Thus, the Court ADOPTS IN PART the Report & Recommendation and DISMISSES the case without prejudice.”
“The Court therefore STRIKES Plaintiff’s motion to compel at Dkt. 53 as untimely.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Government’s Motion to Dismiss”
“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or for Leave to File a Sur-Reply.”
“For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss the SAC is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.”
“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART, partially with and partially without prejudice, the Motion as specified below.”
“Plaintiff’s concurrently filed Motion to Reopen Discovery, (Dkt. 101), is superseded by this Order and is therefore TERMINATED as moot.”
Van Keulen modified and entered the parties' proposed order continuing the initial case-management conference after a settlement conference was vacated.
“Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.”
“the Court DENIES WITHOUT”
“seal at Dkt. 395 is TERMINATED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.”
“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Kivork MTD and the Archer MTD and”
“GRANTS the Joby MTD.”
“This argument is MOOT.”
“Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS:”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sample covers cases filed in 2022. As an initially assigned San Jose magistrate judge, van Keulen handles product liability, personal injury, construction, trademark, prisoner civil-rights, Social Security, federal tort and medical-malpractice, immigration, employee-benefit collection, habeas, and copyright 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 | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 3 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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 Keulen: 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 Keulen with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Keulen, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Keulen's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace