Barry Ted Moskowitz
How Judge Moskowitz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
When statutory text lists specific exclusions, he applies the list as written and declines to enlarge it through agency regulations. In the overtime case, that textual approach preserved a claim based on cash health-and-wellness payments.
“Under Section 6707(e)’s plain language, fringe benefits payments are excludable from the regular rate of pay only if they are excluded under Section 207(e).”
Procedural preferences
For prolonged immigration detention, he has required an individualized bond hearing before a neutral decision-maker and placed the clear-and-convincing burden on the government, while reserving immediate release for a failure to provide the ordered process.
“During the bond hearing, the Respondents shall bear the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the Petitioner poses a danger or flight risk.”
Cautions
He treats constitutional and statutory challenges as judicially manageable even when they implicate military policy and national-security concerns; a political-question argument needs more than significant political implications.
“The questions in this case fall within the core of a federal court’s function ‘to say what the law is.’”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff has leave to file an Amended Complaint. Any amended complaint must be filed within 45 days of the entry of this Order.”
“No genuine dispute exists to show Plaintiff properly exhausted the retaliation claims alleged in Claim Six of his Complaint; therefore, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to those claims is GRANTED pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56 and 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a).”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (ECF No. 100).”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Copies (ECF No. 103) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of ECF Nos. 88, 100, and 101 to Plaintiff”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated above. As to Count IV ... the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. As to Count V ... the Motion to Dismiss Count V is GRANTED without prejudice.”
“For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Defendant Fletcher's motion for summary judgment.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court grants judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action for ‘Tort Arising from Breach of Contract.’ Defendants' motion is otherwise denied.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. ... The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice.”
“Defendant's motion to strike is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED [IN] PART [AND] DENIED IN PART. The Court awards Plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $57,512.25 and costs in the amount of $2,272.69.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants application and DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to liability on class issues [dock. # 92] without prejudice. Plaintiffs may re-file their motion as soon as the two pending motions regarding class certification are decided”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the claims in Plaintiff's SAC for failing to properly exhaust his administrative remedies is GRANTED.”
“In light of the Court's finding that summary judgment is appropriate as to all the claims in this action, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's SAC ... pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to (1) Plaintiff's breach of contract claims for commission payments on the Watkins Agreement ... Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff's breach of contract, breach of implied covenant, and Cal Labor Code 1738.15 claims for commission payments on the field test order”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 85 days (N = 5).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 202.5 days (N = 10).
2020 cohort: federal habeas/2241 (Chelberg v. Williams), 2255 vacate-sentence (Lambarena v. United States), constitutional state-statute challenge (Bols v. Newsom, 872d), ADA Title III (Schutza v. Fletcher Hills Real Estate), and a US-defendant matter (Johnson v. United States). His broader docket, reflected in his published orders, adds prisoner 1983/FTCA/Bivens and (Chief-era) commercial/IP. Referred magistrates surfaced: Andrew G. Schopler, Barbara L. Major, William V. Gallo.
Put Judge Moskowitz's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Moskowitz actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Moskowitz's own signed orders and cites them.