Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
How Judge Rogers decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In consumer class actions, grants a motion to dismiss in part -- e.g., dismissing common-law claims asserted under the laws of states with no named plaintiff.
“the Court (i) GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss the common law claims in Counts 1, 2, and 3 to the extent claims under the laws of the unrepresented thirty-eight states are asserted, on grounds that plaintiffs do not have Article III standing to assert such claims, but (ii) DENIES defendant's motion to dismiss the TDTPA claim brought under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code sections 17.50(a)(1) and 17.50(a)(3).”
Procedural preferences
When granting a motion to dismiss with leave to amend, sets a firm deadline and bars new arguments that could have been raised in the current motion.
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of issuance of this Order.”
Cautions
Grants a defendant's motion for summary judgment (denying the companion motion to dismiss as moot) where the plaintiff cannot prevail on the record.
“For the reasons set forth in this Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and Denying Their Motion to Dismiss as Moot, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff take nothing by this action. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants Garcia, Lomeli, Gonzalez, and Gomez.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court (i) GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss the common law claims in Counts 1, 2, and 3 to the extent claims under the laws of the unrepresented thirty-eight states are asserted, on grounds that plaintiffs do not have Article III standing to assert such claims, but (ii) DENIES defendant's motion to dismiss the TDTPA claim brought under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code sections 17.50(a)(1) and 17.50(a)(3).”
TENTATIVE ruling on Umpqua Bank's motion to dismiss certain claims (overdraft-fee class action). The court 'is inclined to grant in part and deny in part the motion' (tentatively: dismiss the unconscionability claim; deny as to the UCL, conversion, and unjust-enrichment claims), but it is expressly a tentative ruling that becomes the order only if the parties stipulate or after the scheduled hearing -- so it is NOT recorded as a final motion outcome. Because it is a tentative ruling, it is not recorded as a final motion outcome. Gonzalez Rogers issues written tentative rulings before hearing and offers to take the hearing off calendar if the parties stipulate to the tentative.
Securities class action. Administrative/case-management order on lead plaintiff's Civil L.R. 7-11 motion to file a corrected amended complaint; rather than rule outright, the court ordered the parties to file a joint statement on the procedural effect of granting the amendment after the defendants had already filed their motion to dismiss. There is no dispositive outcome here; it shows she manages a high-profile securities docket through tight procedural sequencing.
Food-labeling consumer class action ('evaporated cane juice'). This order dissolves the prior stay after the FDA completed its guidance process and directs renewed MTD briefing -- a procedural one. It recites that in a March 25, 2014 order (Dkt. 60) the court had granted Odwalla's motion to dismiss on primary-jurisdiction grounds and stayed (rather than dismissed) the action pending FDA action. She invokes the primary-jurisdiction doctrine to stay food-labeling claims that turn on issues committed to the FDA, then resumes once the agency acts. The underlying 2014 MTD grant was a separate order and is not recorded as a motion stat.
“For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of issuance of this Order.”
“For the reasons set forth in this Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and Denying Their Motion to Dismiss as Moot, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff take nothing by this action. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants Garcia, Lomeli, Gonzalez, and Gomez.”
“Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and Denying Their Motion to Dismiss as Moot”
“the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss and GRANTS the motion to consolidate.”
“the Court GRANTS defendants' motion to compel arbitration with regard to plaintiffs Shontae Stephens and Sienna Stephens' claims, dismiss plaintiffs Shontae Stephens and Sienna Stephens' class claims, and stay the non-individual PAGA claims.”
“the Court declines to certify either of plaintiff's questions for appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Thus, the motion is DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS summary judgment as to all remaining claims in this action.”
“the motions to dismiss are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ... Conversely, the fourth, eighth, and ninth causes of action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 12(b)(1).”
“The motion for sanctions is DENIED as plaintiff's arguments are not found to be frivolous.”
“the motion is DENIED as to Claim 7, GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE as to Claim 6, and otherwise GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The late-May and early-June 2026 sample is dominated by newly filed social-media personal-injury and product-liability cases involving Meta Platforms, consistent with a coordinated assignment, along with new criminal matters. Her historical caseload includes major antitrust, securities, and consumer class actions.
Put Judge Rogers's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Rogers actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Rogers's own signed orders and cites them.