Susan G. van Keulen

How Judge Keulen rules, drawn from 6 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Position
magistrate
Commissioned
2017-01-03
Education
University of California, Davis (B.A.); UCLA School of Law (J.D.)
Signed orders read
6

How Judge Keulen decides

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

Procedural preferences

She enforces the local deadline for discovery motions and struck a motion filed months after that deadline where the moving party had not obtained 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).”

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.

James Blocho v. Todd Rothbard, et al.
18-cv-03750-BLF · 2018-11-01
Ifp application recommendation (plaintiff) Denied

“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.”

Melina Razavi v. San Jose Police, et al.
5:17-cv-02088-EJD · 2017-05-16
Screening dismissal recommendation (court) Granted

“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.”

AbelFatah Ellawendy v. CSUMB Police Department, et al.
19-CV-08417-LHK · 2020-11-24
Screening dismissal recommendation (court) Granted

“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.”

Sunil Ingle v. Criteo Corporation
5:24-cv-04742-NW (SVK) · 2026-07-07
Motion to compel discovery (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“The Court therefore STRIKES Plaintiff’s motion to compel at Dkt. 53 as untimely.”

Krishnan Narayan, et al. v. Joseph B. Edlow, et al.
5:25-cv-11000-SVK · 2026-04-16
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Government’s Motion to Dismiss”

Motion to strike or leave to file surreply (plaintiff) Granted in part

“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or for Leave to File a Sur-Reply.”

Macy Merrell v. Florida Crystals Corporation
5:25-cv-02264-SVK · 2026-04-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the reasons discussed below, the motion to dismiss the SAC is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.”

Xiaoyong Lai v. Meng Jing Lu and Lu Zhang
5:24-cv-06470-NW (SVK) · 2026-07-30
Motion for discovery sanctions (plaintiff) Granted in part

“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART, partially with and partially without prejudice, the Motion as specified below.”

Motion to reopen discovery (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff’s concurrently filed Motion to Reopen Discovery, (Dkt. 101), is superseded by this Order and is therefore TERMINATED as moot.”

Bart D. Kimber v. United States of America
5:25-cv-05883-SVK · 2026-04-30

Van Keulen modified and entered the parties' proposed order continuing the initial case-management conference after a settlement conference was vacated.

Rachida K. v. Commissioner of Social Security
5:26-cv-01035-SVK · 2026-08-19
Social security appeal (joint stipulation) Granted

“Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.”

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.

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