Thomas S. Hixson
How Judge Hixson rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Hixson
Thomas S. Hixson has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in San Francisco for the Northern District of California since 2018. He previously clerked for Ninth Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima and practiced complex litigation. He earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University.
Judge Hixson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Hixson, 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
File a redlined or highlighted comparison whenever an amended pleading follows a motion to amend or court order.
“If a party files a motion to amend or the Court orders a party to file an amended pleading, that party shall concurrently file a redlined or highlighted version comparing the amended pleading to the prior operative pleading.”
Filing
Email proposed orders in Word format to the designated proposed-order address.
“Any proposed order in a case subject to electronic filing shall be emailed in Word format to [email protected].”
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 Hixson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In denying transfer, he gave substantial weight to a resident plaintiff's chosen forum and considered modern video testimony and electronic document transfer in assessing practical burden.
“The Court affords Plaintiff’s chosen forum great weight. He lives in this District and his limited means would make it difficult for him to effectively litigate this case in the District of Arizona.”
Procedural preferences
He may defer evidentiary questions until trial when admissibility depends on a foundation that has not yet been laid.
“The Court expresses no view on that argument here but will wait to see what foundation is laid at trial.”
At the pleading stage, he accepted detailed circumstantial allegations about automated calls without requiring a plaintiff to possess the defendant's technical evidence before discovery.
“Twombly and Iqbal do not require a plaintiff to possess or to plead evidence. Rather, ‘detailed factual allegations are not required,’ and a complaint need only have sufficient factual allegations to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
In three related discovery disputes, he required the moving party to explain why requested discovery was relevant and proportional, rather than merely attack the other side’s objections.
“Meta did not do that here, and indeed it did not try.”
Cautions
Where missed discovery obligations appeared attributable to counsel, he rejected case-ending and evidence-preclusion sanctions but imposed a limited monetary sanction on counsel.
“Given that these failures appear to be the fault of Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court finds BART’s request is exceptionally harsh under the circumstances and therefore DENIES BART’s request to prohibit Plaintiff from presenting any evidence.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“On September 3, 2019, Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending dismissal of this IFP action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). ... I agree with Judge Hixon's Report and Recommendation and adopt it in every respect. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim.”
“The Court has reviewed Judge Thomas S. Hixson's Report and Recommendation Re: Dismissal of the Complaint, and notes there are no objections to the Report. The Court adopts the Report in every respect. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”
“Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued a report and recommendation on March 11, 2021, requesting reassignment to a district judge and recommending that the motion be granted and damages and attorney's fees be awarded. ... I ADOPT IN PART Judge Hixon's report and recommendation with respect to the entry of default judgment and its award of damages. ... Fooksman's motion for default judgment is GRANTED on the breach of contract claim and Fooksman is awarded $3,187,028 in damages. ... I will, however, depart from the recommended award of attorney's fees.”
“Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is therefore DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 1.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 2 with respect to the Newman Email (Saber’s Tr. Ex. A).”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 3.”
“The Court therefore DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 4 without prejudice to Floyd renewing this objection as to a specific piece of evidence or witness at trial.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 5 with the caveat that Saber may introduce evidence that Floyd had other gym memberships that were terminated as it relates to Floyd’s claim for damages.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 6 to exclude the Jax Three Notes (Saber’s Tr. Ex. C).”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 7.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 8 with the guidance expressed above.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 9.”
“However, it seems to the Court that this dispute is moot, as Saber does not list Boucher as a trial witness. See generally Saber’s Pretrial Statement. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 10.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 11 to exclude the Boucher Email (Saber’s Tr. Ex. A).”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 12 to exclude the Saber Account Notes (Saber’s Tr. Ex. B).”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 13.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Floyd’s Motion in Limine No. 14.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART BART’s motion for sanctions as follows:”
“The Court DENIES BART’s motion to change deadlines as to BART only.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion, GRANTS Defendant’s cross-motion, and remands this matter for further proceedings consistent with this order.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to transfer venue.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Nexo’s Motion to Dismiss.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled civil cases were assigned to Hixson by the parties' consent and both ended through voluntary dismissal. 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 | 8 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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 Hixson: 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 Hixson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Hixson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Hixson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace