Anthony Joseph Battaglia
How Judge Battaglia rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Battaglia
Anthony Joseph Battaglia is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Battaglia received a commission on March 9, 2011. Judge Battaglia assumed senior status on March 31, 2021.
Judge Battaglia's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Battaglia, 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.
- Battaglia Bailiff Instructions to the Jury ↗
- Battaglia Bench Book on Minors Compromise ↗
- Battaglia Civil Procedures ↗
- Battaglia Criminal Chambers Rules ↗
- Battaglia Disclosure and Discovery Manual Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ↗
- Battaglia Questions to be Asked on Voir Dire by the Court in a Civil Case ↗
- Battaglia Typical Criminal Trial Voir Dire ↗
- Battaglia Voir Dire for 1983 cases ↗
Key rules
Filing
Do not provide courtesy copies unless the court orders them.
“Courtesy copies must not be provided unless ordered by the Court.”
Motions
File and serve motion papers the same day chambers provides a hearing date.
“Motion papers MUST be filed and served the same day of obtaining a motion hearing date from chambers.”
Conferences
Request remote appearance by joint or ex parte motion at least seven calendar days before the hearing.
“All requests to appear remotely must be made by joint or ex parte motion filed at least 7 calendar days before the scheduled 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).
- General Order 514-E: Policy on Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files ↗
- General Order 596: Pro Bono Plan ↗
- Chief Judge Order 144: Standard Procedures for Immigration Habeas Petitions ↗
- Chief Judge Order 134-A: Appointment of Counsel for Certain Immigration Detainees Seeking Habeas Relief ↗
How Judge Battaglia decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At the pleading stage, he denied qualified immunity where a complaint alleged violations of clearly established Ninth Circuit family-seizure law, and he found municipal liability adequately pleaded through similar cases and supervisor admissions about training.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiffs' malicious prosecution claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. All other claims in the FAC remain.”
Procedural preferences
In Aroeste's foreign-account reporting dispute, he denied the Government's summary-judgment motion and held that treaty residency removed the taxpayer's FBAR liability, though late disclosure still carried a separate penalty.
“the Court DENIES the Government’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Aroeste’s motion for summary judgment.”
He requires diligence before modifying a scheduling order; in Anderson, counsel knew the potential new theory and proposed amendment but waited fifty days and twice sought other schedule changes without moving the amendment deadline.
“Absent diligence, ‘the motion should not be granted.’”
Cautions
Holds FCRA Section 1681s-2 preempts California's CCRAA Section 1785.25(f), while treating reasonable-investigation and willfulness as jury questions that survive summary judgment.
“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART IQ Data's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 44).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 32.) Plaintiffs' malicious prosecution claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. All other claims in the FAC remain.”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 50)”
“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART IQ Data's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 44).”
“For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the County’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 19.) Should Plaintiffs choose to do so, where leave is granted, they must file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted herein by December 10, 2024.”
“the Court DENIES the Government’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Aroeste’s motion for summary judgment.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART”
“motion to remand is DENIED”
“motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED”
“the Court GRANTS summary judgment in Defendants”
“DENIES AS MOOT all other pending motions”
“The Court APPROVES the Settlement”
“petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) with prejudice”
Procedural, low-decision-value order. A pro se detainee filed a Section 1983 complaint with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the prisoner's IFP application did not include the required six-month certified trust-fund account statement, the Court could not assess the filing fee and denied the motion without prejudice, dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to pay the fee or submit a properly supported application, while granting 45 days' leave to cure. Grounding quote from the order: "the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED".
Procedural, low-decision-value order. A pro se detainee filed a Section 1983 complaint with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Taking judicial notice of the docket in his prior cases, the Court found he had accumulated at least three qualifying dismissals while incarcerated and did not plausibly allege imminent danger of serious physical injury, so he was barred from proceeding without prepaying fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes rule, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The Court denied IFP as barred and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. Grounding quote from the order: "based on his failure to pay the full $405 civil filing fee".
“For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 192 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 161 days (N = 4).
The sampled docket includes consumer-protection, employee-benefits, employment, civil-rights, disability-access, copyright, civil-forfeiture, patent, contract, telecommunications, and Federal Tort Claims Act matters. More recent assignments also include securities, product-liability, and consumer 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 | 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 | 9 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2025 | 4 | 10 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 9 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 7 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 9 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 30 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 129 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 177 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 190 |
| Sep 2020 | 7 | 189 |
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 Southern District of California, not for Judge Battaglia: 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 | 2,204 | 5.3 months |
| Closed with no court action | 642 | 3.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,066 | 5.3 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 484 | 10.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 38.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,204 | 5.3 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,146 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,133 | 6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,974 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,381 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,885 | 6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,265 | 6.2 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 Battaglia with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Battaglia, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Battaglia's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace