Gonzalo P. Curiel
How Judge Curiel rules, drawn from 50 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Curiel
Gonzalo Paul Curiel is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Curiel received a commission on October 1, 2012. Judge Curiel assumed senior status on September 7, 2023.
Judge Curiel's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Curiel, 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
Motions
Obtain a motion hearing date by calling the law clerk before filing.
“all dates for motion hearings must be obtained by calling the law clerk before filing any motion.”
Motions
File and serve motion papers the same day chambers provides the hearing date.
“Motion papers MUST be filed and served the same day of obtaining a motion hearing date from chambers.”
Motions
Attach a separate statement of undisputed material facts to each summary judgment motion.
“All motions for summary judgment shall be accompanied by a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed.”
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 Curiel decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Vivian C.’s Social Security appeal, he reversed the agency decision and remanded for an immediate award of benefits.
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, REVERSES the ALJ's decision and REMANDS the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for an immediate award of benefits.”
In Cohen’s suit against Trump University, he denied a motion to strike complaint paragraphs the defendant characterized as “mere puffery.”
“the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to strike the paragraphs of the Complaint containing statements considered by Defendant to constitute ‘mere puffery.’”
In Corona’s consumer claim, he found the complaint insufficient because it did not allege the percentage of foreign-sourced ingredients.
“the complaint fails to allege any percentage of the foreign sourced ingredients and as such fails to state a claim under Rule 8, and necessarily under Rule 9(b).”
In recent immigration-detention cases, the court rejected an interpretation that would make Congress's targeted detention amendment unnecessary and treated the petitioners as eligible for bond consideration under Section 1226(a).
“Such an ‘interpretation would render the Laken Riley Act, “superfluous”’ and, therefore, should not be accepted.”
Procedural preferences
In Chaikin’s class settlement, he found that credit vouchers redeemable without another purchase were not coupons subject to Section 1712.
“the Court adopts the approach of the line of federal district court cases distinguishing credit vouchers, which require no additional purchase to redeem and therefore operate like cash, from coupons ... Accordingly, the Court does not view this settlement as a 'coupon settlement' requiring the application of 28 U.S.C. 1712.”
In Said v. County of San Diego, he granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss but allowed the plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint addressing the pleading deficiencies.
“Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days leave from the date this Order is filed in which to file a First Amended Complaint which cures the deficiencies of pleading noted above.”
In Langer v. Nenow, he found the federal accessibility claim moot after the defendants built and documented a second accessible parking stall; he declined jurisdiction over the remaining state claim and remanded it.
“the Court DECLINES jurisdiction over Plaintiff's second cause of action and REMANDS Plaintiff's case to state court.”
In Cottle-Banks’s sealing request, he found the plaintiff had offered only a one-paragraph argument without a declaration or specific description of the material to protect.
“Plaintiff provides a one paragraph summary argument without a declaration or specific description of particular documents or information that need to be protected.”
In Glinoga v. Sullivan Entertainment, after the plaintiff missed the deadline to amend and sought no extension, he dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b).
“Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he requested an extension of time in which to do so.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, REVERSES the ALJ's decision and REMANDS the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for an immediate award of benefits.”
“For the reasons explained above, MTC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Murillo's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and request for punitive damages is DENIED.”
“Based on the reasoning below, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss.”
“The unopposed motion for final approval of class action, (Dkt. No. 29), is GRANTED; ... This action, including all individual and Class claims resolved in it, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
“The unopposed motion for attorney's fees, (Dkt. No. 28), is GRANTED. The Court awards $155,000.00 to Class Counsel and $3,000.00 to Named Plaintiff Lauren Chaikin”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 9), is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike, (Dkt. No. 10), is DENIED.”
“Based on the reasoning above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and GRANTS Defendants' motions for summary judgment with the exception of the Center Plaintiff's seventh cause of action for FOIA violations.”
“Based on the above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining causes of action.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part”
“Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss as to all causes of action.”
“The Court also DENIES Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's request for punitive damages as to the County”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part (as to the state-law claims) and denied in part (as to the First Amendment claims). The dismissal as to the state law claims are without prejudice; if Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, she must do so no later than within 30 days of this order.”
“the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend and GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration with leave to amend.”
“Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 357 days (N = 8).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 15.0 days (N = 26).
- Judge Curiel has handled a broad San Diego civil docket, including consumer, accessibility, securities, prisoner-rights, employment, contract, and class-action matters.
- Since taking senior status in 2023 he has continued to receive new assignments, with a prominent 2025-2026 group of immigration-detention habeas petitions requiring expedited decisions.
- The sampled mix is descriptive, not a complete caseload census.
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 | 29 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 29 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 24 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 21 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 18 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 12 |
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 Curiel: 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 Curiel with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Curiel, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Curiel's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace