Larry A. Burns
How Judge Burns rules, drawn from 10 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Burns no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Burns
Larry Alan Burns was a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Burns received a commission on September 25, 2003. Judge Burns assumed senior status on January 22, 2021 and retired on May 1, 2024.
How Judge Burns decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Dittmar v. Costco Wholesale, he declined to dismiss the class allegations before discovery and class-certification briefing because he lacked enough information to assess them.
“In the absence of discovery and the presentation of specific arguments from both parties concerning class certification, the Court lacks sufficient information to rule on the propriety of the class allegations.”
Cautions
In Cattie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Burns declined to decide disputed corporate responsibility through a factual Rule 12(b)(1) attack because that standing question overlapped the merits; he assessed the pleadings instead.
“In such a case, jurisdictional finding of disputed facts under Rule 12(b)(1) is inappropriate.”
In Razuki v. Caliber Home Loans, Burns dismissed with prejudice after the plaintiff still failed to plead basic facts, finding another amendment futile.
“Caliber's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. ... The only inference the Court can draw from his failure to plead basic facts is that he is in possession of no facts that would plausibly support his claim, and that amendment would therefore be futile. For that reason, the Court DISMISSES THIS CASE WITH PREJUDICE.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court ADOPTS the R&R, as modified. Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' request to dismiss the Due Process claim regarding pretrial detention is DENIED. Defendants' request to dismiss the Due Process and Eighth Amendment claims regarding postconviction detention are GRANTED. ... Haraszewski need not file an amended complaint, but if he chooses to do so, he must do so no later than October 21, 2011, and it may not include dismissed claims”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“J & J's motion to strike is GRANTED. Affirmative defenses one, two, five, and thirteen are stricken without leave to amend. The remainder are stricken with leave to amend.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Protec's Motion is DENIED. (Dkt. 58). ... The Court can't conclude that it was entirely clear that this case was ‘frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation’ at the outset.”
“Caliber's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. ... The only inference the Court can draw from his failure to plead basic facts is that he is in possession of no facts that would plausibly support his claim, and that amendment would therefore be futile. For that reason, the Court DISMISSES THIS CASE WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The FAC sufficiently states a claim under California Civil Code SS 2923.55, 2923.6, and 2923.7 and California Business and Professions Code S 17200.”
“Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ... Plaintiff's claims for damages under the CLRA are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ... Plaintiff's claims and the class claims under the UCL and FAL are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ... her request for leave to amend is DENIED at this time.”
“Costco's motion to dismiss or strike (Docket no. 23) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint that's consistent with this order no later than June 24, 2016.”
“The R & R is ADOPTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
Order staying the action pending the defendant's interlocutory appeal of a partial summary-judgment denial. The stay did not decide a party motion on the merits. Quote: 'this action is STAYED pending the resolution of the appeal.'
“The Motion is DENIED. ... The requested bar is too broad and, as such, is unjustified. The Court won't approve a settlement barring claims against Greenwich relating to the facts and matters described in this action unless the bar is limited to claims related to Adams' conduct only.”
“The Adams parties' related motions to join in the Receiver's Motion and Reply are GRANTED. (Dkt. 642; Dkt. 656).”
“The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs may file an amended pleading within 28 days of this Order. ... its fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action against [Gore and Lee] must be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It can't state a claim for punitive damages against the County, or a Bane Act claim on behalf of any Plaintiff other than the Estate; those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 124 days (N = 22).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 128 days (N = 3).
- Judge Burns served in San Diego from 2003 through 2024.
- His docket was dominated by border and immigration prosecutions, including illegal-reentry and drug-importation cases, which fall outside this civil-motion analysis.
- The sampled civil matters include pro se prisoner civil-rights suits, state habeas petitions, filing-fee screening dismissals, and Social Security appeals.
- This describes caseload composition rather than how he tended to rule.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 1 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Burns no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.