Trina L. Thompson
How Judge Thompson rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Thompson
Trina Lynn Thompson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Thompson received a commission on August 5, 2022.
Judge Thompson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Thompson, 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
Check the scheduling notes before noticing a motion; no advance hearing reservation is needed.
“Counsel need not reserve motion hearing dates but should check Judge Thompson’s 9 scheduling notes on the Court’s website to determine the next available law and motion calendar”
Conferences
File the joint case management statement at least seven calendar days before the conference and do not incorporate prior statements by reference.
“Parties must not incorporate prior case management statements by reference. Parties 27 shall file their joint statement not less than seven calendar days prior to the case management”
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 Thompson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Koraish's vessel-related suit, she considered the parties' evidence about the ship's location, found the plaintiff had not shown venue was proper in the Northern District of California, and transferred the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana.
“Accordingly, the Court finds that venue is not proper in this district.”
In the reviewed foreclosure dispute, a loan servicer's generic description of operational and financial burdens did not outweigh the borrower's concrete risk of losing his home.
“While Defendant contends that a preliminary injunction will impose ‘significant operational, financial, and regulatory burdens on loan servicers,’ the Court finds that without any specificity of its operational, financial, and regulatory burdens, Defendant fails to meet its minimal burden to tip the balance of equities in its favor.”
Procedural preferences
In Adrian Timmerman v. FCA US, LLC, she ordered the plaintiff's lawyers to explain their absence from the final pretrial conference and their ex parte request for remote appearance. The order began a sanctions inquiry but imposed no sanction.
“Given Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to attend the pretrial conference or to include defense counsel on its ex parte request to appear at the pretrial conference remotely, the Court orders Mr. Chae, Mr. Arabi, and Ms. Rucker to show cause why they did not appear at today’s final pretrial conference”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment regarding whether Allied World breached its contract in denying coverage to Plaintiff because there remain disputed issues of material fact as to whether Allied World's obligations were ever triggered by a ‘suit.’”
“In addition, plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot in light of the fact that he has been released from jail custody. Dkt. No. 17.”
“The stay is denied but plaintiff may seek an extension if he requires one for a particular filing.”
“The petition is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice as time barred. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent and against petitioner and close the case.”
“The petition is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice.1 ... Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.”
“this federal habeas petition is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).”
“The Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion to Compel Arbitration and for a Stay of Proceedings, and the Motion for Joinder are DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. Discovery will commence on the date the ruling on the pending motion to dismiss is issued.”
Pro se Section 1983 civil-rights complaint by a county-jail prisoner over a 2018 incident. Thompson first dismissed the complaint with leave to amend so the plaintiff could explain the timeliness of his claim. When the amendment deadline passed without a filing, she dismissed the case with prejudice sua sponte for failure to state a claim and warned that it would count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Quote: The complaint is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment for the defendant, and close the file.
Pro se Section 1983 complaint by a California state prisoner. After an earlier dismissal with leave to file a first amended complaint, the plaintiff missed the deadline and sought no extension, so Thompson dismissed the case without prejudice sua sponte and closed the file. Quote: This case is therefore dismissed without prejudice. The clerk shall terminate any pending motions, enter judgment for defendants, and close the file.
Pro se in forma pauperis complaint by a federal prisoner against Google over search-result thumbnail images that led to his prosecution, framed as a Section 1983 claim plus state-law negligence. On sua sponte Section 1915 screening, Thompson held that there was no state action to support a Section 1983 claim, no private right of action under the Communications Decency Act or federal criminal statutes, no viable negligence claim, and that Section 230 independently barred the claims. Quote: For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions, enter judgment, and close the file.
“Because the Court dismisses this claim as deficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF 1.”
Pro se Section 1983 order of service by a civil detainee alleging excessive force and failure to intervene at Salinas Valley State Prison. On Section 1915A screening, Thompson found a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim against the alleged force-user and two non-intervening defendants and ordered the complaint served. She separately dismissed the plaintiff's injunctive-relief claims sua sponte as moot because he had transferred to a different facility. Quote: Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are DISMISSED.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The June 2026 sample is dominated by newly filed cases involving online platforms, securities, consumer products, disability access, immigration-detention habeas petitions, and criminal matters. Older terminated cases filed in 2024 include patent, insurance and contract, immigration-delay, foreclosure, and civil-rights disputes. The durations below come from terminated 2024 cases.
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 12 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
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 Thompson: 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 Thompson with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Thompson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Thompson's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace