Barry Ted Moskowitz
How Judge Moskowitz rules, drawn from 29 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Moskowitz
Barry Ted Moskowitz is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Moskowitz received a commission on December 26, 1995. Judge Moskowitz assumed senior status on January 23, 2019.
Judge Moskowitz's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Moskowitz, 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
Filing
Mail or hand deliver courtesy copies of filings over 20 pages to chambers within 24 hours of filing.
“Courtesy copies of filings that exceed 20 pages in length, including attachments and exhibits, shall, within 24 hours after filing, be mailed or hand-delivered to chambers.”
Motions
File and serve motion papers within three court days after receiving a hearing date.
“Motion papers must be filed and served within three (3) court days of obtaining the hearing date.”
Sealing
Give specific reasons when seeking to file a document under seal or with restricted access.
“A party seeking to file a document under seal (or with restricted access) must provide specific reasons why such relief is appropriate.”
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 Moskowitz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Williams v. Enterprise Resource Planning, he held that cash health-and-wellness payments were not among the statutory exclusions from the overtime regular rate.
“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
In one 2026 prolonged-detention case, he required the government to prove danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence at a bond hearing. That burden describes the cited order and should be checked against the applicable detention regime.
“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.”
In Jose D.L.S., he conditionally granted habeas relief and ordered a bond hearing if the government obtained a proper arrest warrant. Under the circuit decision he cited, the petitioner bore a preponderance burden to show neither danger nor flight risk at that hearing.
“shows by a preponderance of the evidence that he is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk, the IJ must grant bond and order his release.”
Cautions
In Pro Publica v. Bligh, he rejected a political-question defense to a challenge involving access to Navy judicial proceedings, finding the issues judicially manageable.
“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.
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 | 4 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 5 | 10 |
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 Moskowitz: 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 Moskowitz with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Moskowitz, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Moskowitz's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace