Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Court for the Southern District of California district Appointed by George W. Bush (Republican) 15 signed orders read

How Judge Sammartino decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In Social Security appeals she will reverse and remand for further administrative proceedings where the agency record has a specific gap, such as the absence of vocational-expert testimony the disability determination required.

“This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for additional proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to allow for testimony by a vocational expert.”

Procedural preferences

Rules on cross-motions and multi-part motions granularly rather than wholesale: on summary judgment and Daubert challenges she routinely grants in part and denies in part, resolving each claim and each expert issue on its own terms.

“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81)”

Cautions

Will end a case with a with-prejudice dismissal where a plaintiff has already had multiple opportunities to replead and still fails to state a claim.

“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 70). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 66.) This Order ends the litigation in this matter.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 70). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 66.) This Order ends the litigation in this matter.”

FlorExpo LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (ECF No. 22).”

NeSmith v. County of San Diego
Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“the Court DENIES Defendants' County of San Diego, Deputy Patrick Newlander, and Deputy Christopher Olsen's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 119).”

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co.
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss the first claim for declaratory judgment. Plaintiff's first claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to strike the allegation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).”

Motions to stay (defendant) Granted

“Defendant's motion to stay pending the resolution of the pending state court action is GRANTED.”

Steinmeyer v. American Association of Blood Banks
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14). The Complaint's intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligence per se, false advertising, and unfair competition claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent they seek damages... The Complaint's remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing to pursue injunctive and declaratory relief.”

United States Aviation Underwriters Inc. v. Aerospike Iron, LLC
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 83)”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 81)”

Daubert (plaintiff) Granted in part

“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs' Daubert Motion (ECF No. 82)”

Daubert (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Daubert Motion (ECF No. 80).”

The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Arena Group 2000, L.P.
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Finding that plaintiffs are not entitled to declaratory relief and reimbursement, the Court DENIES plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Further finding that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Count IV of plaintiffs' complaint, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion for partial summary judgment.”

Motions to strike (plaintiff) Granted in part

“The Court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to strike the Chihak Declaration and DENIES the motion to strike the Bedoe and Sanders declarations.”

Shahabzada v. Astrue (Commissioner of Social Security)
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for additional proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to allow for testimony by a vocational expert.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's objections are OVERRULED... Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Burns v. Decarr (Vista Detention Facility)
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Defendant Dacar's liability for violating the Eighth Amendment by using excessive force. The remainder of Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”

Haro v. Camargo
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, (1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on exhaustion grounds is DENIED; (2) Defendants Motion to Dismiss the injunctive claims for relief is GRANTED and Plaintiff's injunctive claims for relief are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (3) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the official capacity claims against Defendants is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies outlined in the R&R on or before April 24, 2015.”

Jane Doe (C.M.S.) v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., et al.
3:24-cv-00217-JLS-AHG
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“ESA's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 54) is GRANTED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to Plaintiff's direct and indirect perpetrator theories and DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff's direct and indirect beneficiary theories.”

Paul A. Lapchak v. Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals (USA), Inc., et al.
3:24-cv-00143-JLS-DDL
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint's Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The caseload sample covers two filing periods. Sammartino's 2026 docket is dominated by alien-detainee habeas petitions, many referred to magistrate judges. The 2020-2022 sample is weighted toward immigration and drug prosecutions, with civil matters including a False Claims Act case, diversity insurance litigation, and prisoner civil-rights claims.

Put Judge Sammartino's record to work

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

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