Cynthia A. Bashant
How Judge Bashant rules, drawn from 45 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Bashant
Cynthia Ann Bashant is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Bashant received a commission on May 8, 2014.
Judge Bashant's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Bashant, 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
Submit proposed orders in Word format with all motions.
“Any proposed orders must be submitted in Word format simultaneously with all motions.”
Filing
Do not send courtesy copies.
“No courtesy copies are necessary for any filings.”
Motions
Seek leave through an ex parte request before filing a sur-reply or notice of supplemental authority.
“The parties must obtain leave of court by filing an ex parte request before filing any sur-replies or notices of supplemental authority.”
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 Bashant decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Daybreak Game Company LLC v. Takahashi, she granted the supplemental preliminary-injunction motion after considering the required factors.
“In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Daybreak's Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 38).”
Procedural preferences
In Upper Deck Co. v. Pixels.com, LLC, she applied Section 230 immunity to claims about advertising and search tools but allowed claims about manufacturing and selling the physical products.
“Pixels is entitled to Section 230 immunity where Upper Deck seeks to hold it accountable for the advertisement of allegedly infringing goods, or for creating website tools that allow users to search and view allegedly infringing goods based on images uploaded by third parties. However, Pixels is not entitled to Section 230 immunity to Upper Deck's California state law claims where Upper Deck seeks to hold Pixels accountable for manufacturing and selling the allegedly infringing products listed for sale on its website.”
In Requene Ydrogo v. LaRose, she held that the petitioner was entitled to remain released because the government had shown no material change in the circumstances supporting his earlier release.
“Because DHS released Petitioner upon finding he was not a flight risk or a danger to the community in March 2024, and because there is no evidence those circumstances have changed, Petitioner is entitled to remain released on the same conditions as he was initially released.”
In a request to transfer a training-program dispute to Texas, the court kept the case in California after weighing the plaintiffs’ chosen venue, witness convenience, and the parties’ relative means. The remaining transfer factors were neutral.
“Since Plaintiffs’ choice of venue, convenience of witnesses, and the relative means of Parties weigh against transfer—and the remaining factors are neutral—the Court finds that the overall Section 1404(a) analysis weighs against transferring the action to NDTX.”
Cautions
In Fernandez v. Duarte, she denied a renewed sealing motion without prejudice and required either a better-supported request or a revised public filing.
“the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Renewed Motion. (ECF No. 146.) Defendant must either: (1) file a renewed motion to seal that adequately addresses the Court's concerns, or (2) withdraw his Motion for Summary Judgment and file a revised motion.”
In Fuentes Guevara, she summarily dismissed a third habeas petition that repeated two earlier petitions without presenting new information or grounds for relief.
“The Petition here provides no new information or grounds for relief that were not raised in the First or Second Petitions. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Petition.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16), and GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17).”
“GRANTS Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17).”
“the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 6.) Thus, the Court DENIES the pending Motion to Dismiss as moot (ECF No. 3), and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action.”
“the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Renewed Motion. (ECF No. 146.) Defendant must either: (1) file a renewed motion to seal that adequately addresses the Court's concerns, or (2) withdraw his Motion for Summary Judgment and file a revised motion.”
“In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Daybreak's Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 38).”
“the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for TRO and PI (ECF No. 19) and REFERS Plaintiff's Application to Shorten Discovery (ECF No. 21) to Judge Chu.”
“In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Counter-Claimant Viking Air, Limited's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 9.)”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 81.)”
“The Court further rules as follows on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's FAC ... To the extent the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims, it does so without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to amend the claims herein dismissed, it must do so on or before July 9, 2024.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Hanson Pacific's motion for summary judgment is DENIED (ECF No. 73).”
“While Plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment is technically compliant with the timing requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, it is premature ... Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, (ECF No. 5), is hereby DENIED, without prejudice.”
“For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES Lynn's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint. (ECF No. 118.)”
“The Court GRANTS IN PART Pixels' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 74) ... The Court DENIES IN PART Pixels' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 74).”
“The Court GRANTS IN PART Upper Deck's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 79) ... The Court DENIES IN PART Upper Deck's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 79).”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 94 days (N = 6).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 131 days (N = 4).
The sample includes ten cases filed in December 2024 and one earlier criminal case. It spans Fair Housing Act accommodations, Bivens and prisoner civil-rights claims, mass-tort products liability, debt collection, wage-and-hour litigation, immigration mandamus, removed personal injury, and a federal prosecution. Several civil matters were referred to magistrate judges for pretrial proceedings.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 5 |
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 Bashant: 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 Bashant with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Bashant, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Bashant's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace