Linda Lopez
How Judge Lopez rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Lopez
Linda Lopez is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Lopez received a commission on December 21, 2021.
Judge Lopez's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Lopez, 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
Set a noticed motion hearing 35 days after filing the motion.
“Parties filing a noticed motion must set the hearing to be thirty-five (35) days from the motion’s filing date.”
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.”
Motions
Attach a separate statement of undisputed material facts to every 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 Lopez decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In one contract dispute, she compelled arbitration only for the party bound by the clause and declined to stay the entire action.
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff Philip McGill but DENIES Defendants' request to stay this action pending arbitration.”
In a delivery-charge dispute, she enforced an arbitration clause after finding it covered the claims and the opposing parties had not shown it was unconscionable.
“the Court finds that the arbitration provision is enforceable.”
Procedural preferences
She grants a motion to dismiss without leave to amend where amendment would be futile, mooting related pending motions.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
When ordering a Section 1226(a) bond hearing, she follows circuit precedent placing the burden on the detainee to show by a preponderance of the evidence that release would not create a flight risk or danger.
“In a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), the burden is on the detainee to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he is not a flight risk or danger to the community.”
In an unopposed pleadings motion, she applied the response deadline and dismissal factors, then dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
“GRANTED based on the lack of opposition”
Cautions
In a securities class action, disagreement with the defendants’ accounting judgment did not adequately plead that their opinion statements were false or disbelieved. The related fraud theories also lacked a sufficiently alleged primary misrepresentation.
“Aside from disagreeing with Defendants’ accounting judgment, Plaintiffs fail to allege that Defendants’ subjective opinions were based on untrue statements of facts or information that they did not believe.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, Deputy Steinmeyer's motion to partially dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (‘FAC’) is GRANTED. The claim in Plaintiff's FAC against Deputy Steinmeyer for ‘unreasonable/unlawful entry into and search of private property’ under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“the Court ... DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“The Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' SAC for failure to join necessary and indispensable parties.”
“The Court GRANTS without leave to amend the Motion to Strike the Unauthorized Deduction Class and those portions of the SAC that allege or relate to allegations that utility charges are unauthorized deductions.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration as to Plaintiff Philip McGill but DENIES Defendants' request to stay this action pending arbitration.”
“ORDER Denying 45 Plaintiff's Motion to Certify July 19, 2024 Order for Interlocutory Appeal. Signed by Judge Linda Lopez on 3/31/2025.”
“Accordingly, for the same reasons stated by Judge Bashant, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 13] is DENIED.”
“Moreover, before a party may move for default judgment, there must be an entry of default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)-(b); Symantec Corp. v. Glob. Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment [ECF No. 14] is DENIED.”
“The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED AS MOOT without leave to amend”
“Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 16] is DENIED AS MOOT”
“Petitioner’s request to proceed IFP is denied because Petitioner has not provided the Court with sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financial status. ... Accordingly, the IFP motion is DENIED.”
“Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 6) is DENIED and the First Amended Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. To have his case reopened, Petitioner must both (1) satisfy the filing fee requirement ... AND (2) file a Second Amended Petition which cures the deficiencies outlined in this Order no later than August 4, 2025.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Pontier’s Motion for Recusal.”
“For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and ORDERS that Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody subject only to the conditions of his preexisting parole.”
“the Court GRANTS Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order”
“For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 231 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 33 days (N = 3).
The sampled civil matters include automotive-warranty, telephone-consumer, disability-access, employment, civil-rights, habeas, trademark, and immigration-mandamus cases.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 6 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 2 | 6 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 5 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 3 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 Lopez: 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 Lopez with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Lopez, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Lopez's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace