Michael M. Anello
How Judge Anello decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Construes pro se filings liberally but will not grant a prisoner’s summary-judgment motion filed before discovery on unsupported assertions; denies without prejudice as premature.
“Plaintiff’s motion is unsupported by evidence and premature and must be denied on these grounds.”
Procedural preferences
Strict issue-preservation: denies sur-replies unless the reply genuinely raised a NEW argument (rebuttal of the opposition is not 'new'), and denies Rule 59(e) reconsideration that raises arguments which could have been made earlier. Put every argument in the principal brief.
“the Court finds that Defendant did not raise new arguments that would warrant granting Plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply. ... an alleged mischaracterization of the law alone cannot justify supplemental briefing, or every party would be entitled to the last word.”
Enforces Rule 16(b) diligence strictly: denies eleventh-hour leave to amend (esp. after a dispositive motion is pending) and awards Rule 16(f)(2) expenses against the dilatory party’s counsel.
“Plaintiff fails to meet her burden under Rule 16(b) to demonstrate good cause for amendment of her complaint at this stage of the proceedings.”
Dismisses unserved/unprosecuted defendants under Rule 41(b)/4(m) after weighing the five Ferdik/Pagtalunan factors; once all federal claims are gone, declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismisses them without prejudice to state-court refiling.
“The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendant City. ... Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being refiled in state court.”
Enforces contractual fee-shifting (Cal. Civ. Code 1717) for a prevailing defendant after a with-prejudice dismissal, but independently audits the hours and trims what is excessive for cookie-cutter briefing rather than rubber-stamping the request.
“the Court finds the 21.5 hours O. Andrew Wheaton billed to prepare the motion to dismiss excessive ... the Court reduces that time to 15 hours ... the Court awards Moving Defendants attorneys' fees in the amount of $7,373.”
Cautions
Failing to oppose a dispositive motion is treated as a concession -- an unopposed MTD led to dismissal with prejudice (Tyson), and unopposed aspects of a motion (e.g. Doe defendants under Rule 4(m)) are granted as a matter of course (Abdulkhalik).
“Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition to the motions and the Court ultimately granted all of Defendants' motions and dismissed Plaintiff's action with prejudice.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Summary judgment N = 5 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1Denied: 2Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motions to dismiss N = 2 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1 | counts only |
| Leave to file surreply N = 2 |
Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Leave to amend N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Sanctions N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Reconsideration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Attorneys fees N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
| Clarification N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 44).”
“The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 55).”
“Because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.”
“the Court GRANTS Moving Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and AWARDS $7,373 in attorneys fees to Wells Fargo and O. Andrew Wheaton.”
“the Court GRANTS Target’s motion for summary judgment ... The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Target as to all claims and terminate the case.”
“the Court denies Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.”
“GRANTS Target’s request for attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 16(f)(2). The Court awards Target attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,250.00.”
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 22]”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 23].”
“the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice”
“the Court GRANTS Officer Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
“DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Defendant City’s motion to dismiss ... the Court GRANTS Defendant City’s motion to dismiss all claims against Doe Defendants.”
“the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant City’s motion for summary judgment.”
“the Court AFFIRMS its tentative ruling and GRANTS DeRosa's motion for clarification. On the current record, Plaintiffs are limited to seeking injunctive relief with respect to their trade secret claims at trial.”
“for these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 513 days (N = 10).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 136 days (N = 6).
Broad general-civil docket of a long-tenured San Diego district judge (active 2008-2018, senior since 2018, still assigned). Sampled mix: ADA Title III access (Brooke/White serial filers), Social Security appeals, consumer/debt statutes (TCPA/FDCPA -- a large Midland Credit Management cluster tied to MDL 11-md-02286, over which Anello presided), real-property foreclosure/diversity, removed landlord/diversity, antitrust (Greater San Diego Realtors v. Sandicor), sec.1983, and 2254 habeas. NOT a grant rate -- caseload composition only.