Jinsook Ohta

How Judge Ohta rules, drawn from 11 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Position
district
Appointed by
Joseph R. Biden (Democratic)
Commissioned
2021-12-27
Education
Yale University, B.A. (1998); New York University School of Law, J.D. (2001)
Signed orders read
11

How Judge Ohta decides

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

What persuades

She grants a plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment on a breach-of-contract claim and denies the accompanying declaratory-relief claim as moot.

“For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on her breach-of-contract claim. ... Plaintiff's declaratory relief claim is denied as moot.”

Procedural preferences

Ohta treats reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy and denies it where the required showing is not made.

“the Court concludes that the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration is not warranted here and denies the motion.”

For online-contract arbitration, she requires the interface to connect the user's action clearly to assent; ambiguous language and multiple nearby links did not establish a binding agreement.

“the Court finds that there was no binding agreement to arbitrate because Plaintiff did not unambiguously manifest assent to the Terms of Service.”

Cautions

A prospective-client contact does not by itself require disqualification; the moving party must prove that the disclosed information was materially harmful in the litigation.

“The governing standard for disqualification is whether the information disclosed by a prospective client is ‘materially harmful’ to the client at the time of the disqualification.”

Signed rulings

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

Johnson v. Kinney / Storix, Inc.
Reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“the Court concludes that the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration is not warranted here and denies the motion.”

Moriarty v. American General Life Insurance Company
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on her breach-of-contract claim. ... Plaintiff's declaratory relief claim is denied as moot.”

Yocom v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Motion for discovery (plaintiff) Granted

“For the reasons set forth above, and after a careful consideration of the relevant facts, alleged violations, requested discovery, and legal authority, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Limited Discovery.”

Woodway USA, Inc. v. Lifecore Fitness, Inc.
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to call claims and”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement as to all claims.”

Frias v. County of San Diego
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court grants in part and denies”

Davis v. Bobbla

In a court-initiated in forma pauperis screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), the court found no viable Eighth Amendment claim and dismissed the complaint without prejudice with one final chance to amend. Quote: "DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Sixth Amended Complaint [Dkt. 22] without prejudice."

Hall v. Marriott International, Inc.
Motion for settlement approval (plaintiff) Granted

“The case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and judgment is hereby”

Khambounheuang v. Noem
3:25-cv-02575-JO-SBC · 2025-10-09
Motion for temporary restraining order (petitioner) Granted

“The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order.”

Khambounheuang v. Noem
3:25-cv-02575-JO-SBC · 2025-10-23
Preliminary injunction (petitioner) Granted

“The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction”

Morrison v. Yippee Entertainment, Inc.
3:24-cv-00797-JO-KSC · 2025-11-04
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Denied

“For these reasons, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration”

Adaptamed LLC v. WC Health MSO LLC
3:26-cv-02486-JO-VET · 2026-07-31
Motion to disqualify counsel (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court therefore DENIES Adaptamed’s motion for disqualification.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 112 days (N = 9).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 110.5 days (N = 2).

Judge Ohta's June 2022 through December 2023 docket includes criminal matters, consumer and automotive-warranty disputes, employment and wrongful-termination cases, Section 1983 civil-rights actions, disability-access claims, and contract disputes.

Draft for Judge Ohta with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ohta, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Ohta's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace