Anthony Joseph Battaglia

United States District Court for the Southern District of California district Senior status Appointed by Barack Obama (Democratic) 11 signed orders read

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

Gives a textual, treaty-favorable reading in FBAR cases, declining to read a forfeiture of substantive treaty rights into a missed disclosure form and rejecting agency guidance that skipped APA notice-and-comment.

“the Court DENIES the Government’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Aroeste’s motion for summary judgment.”

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.

Hipschman v. County of San Diego
3:22-cv-00903-AJB-BLM · 2023-09-05
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Palasi v. IQ Data International, Inc.
3:22-cv-01888-AJB-MMP · 2024-01-16
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 50)”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART IQ Data's motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 44).”

Barnaba v. County of San Diego
3:23-cv-01622-AJB-SBC · 2024-11-26
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“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.”

Aroeste v. United States
3:22-cv-00682-AJB-KSC · 2023-11-20
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the Court DENIES the Government’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Aroeste’s motion for summary judgment.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part
Dorsett v. The City of San Diego
3:24-cv-00813-AJB-AHG · 2025-02-24
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART”

Campbell v. CubeSmart, L.P.
3:24-cv-02282-AJB-VET · 2025-01-21
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Denied

“motion to remand is DENIED”

Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED”

Beaver v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation
3:20-cv-00191-AJB-DEB · 2025-07-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS summary judgment in Defendants”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“DENIES AS MOOT all other pending motions”

Motion to exclude expert (plaintiff) Moot / procedural
Motion to exclude expert (defendant) Moot / procedural
Cabrales v. BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc.
3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL · 2025-07-25
Motion for settlement approval (plaintiff) Granted

“The Court APPROVES the Settlement”

Heim v. Gamboa
3:24-cv-02476-AJB-DEB · 2026-03-23
Petition for writ of habeas corpus (plaintiff) Denied

“petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) with prejudice”

Oliver v. Metro Transit
3:25-cv-02932-AJB-VET · 2025-11-21

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".

Lonsdale v. San Diego County Jail
3:25-cv-02358-AJB-DEB · 2025-09-26

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".

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.

Put Judge Battaglia's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Battaglia actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Battaglia's own signed orders and cites them.