Robert Steven Huie

United States District Court for the Southern District of California district Appointed by Joseph R. Biden (Democratic) 9 signed orders read

How Judge Huie decides

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

What persuades

After a jury trial he defers to the verdict, denying a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial where the verdict is supported by the evidence.

“DENIES Defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 378.”

Procedural preferences

He declines to reconfigure court procedures or CM/ECF for a pro se litigant's convenience, holding self-represented parties to the same rules as everyone else.

“his motion for reconsideration is DENIED (ECF No. 139)”

Cautions

In pro se Section 1983 cases he dismisses the claims that fail on the pleadings, letting only a narrow well-pleaded claim (such as unlawful arrest against named officers) survive.

“The City's motion to dismiss the TAC, ECF No. 121, is GRANTED.”

A motion to amend the judgment or for reconsideration that rehashes decided points is denied; he holds parties to the stringent reconsideration standard.

“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment [ECF No. 52] is DENIED.”

Signed rulings

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

Mascorro v. City of San Diego
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The City's motion to dismiss the TAC, ECF No. 121, is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“HPR and Lee's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 123, is GRANTED. ... All of Plaintiff's state claims against Defendants HPR, the House of Norway, Lee, King, and Mogstad are dismissed without leave to amend; those five Defendants are accordingly dismissed from the action.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“HPR and Lee's motion to strike, ECF No. 122, is GRANTED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The Police Officer and Park Ranger Defendants' motion to dismiss the TAC, ECF No. 125, is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim for unlawful arrest (Claim One) against Defendants Green, Larson, and Rodriguez only, and is in all other respects GRANTED.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 131, is DENIED.”

Leave to file (plaintiff) Denied

“denies Plaintiff's motion for leave to file new lawsuits”

Mascorro v. City of San Diego
Motions to stay (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's motion for a stay pending appeal (ECF No. 141) is DENIED.”

Reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“his motion for reconsideration is DENIED (ECF No. 139)”

Motion for clarification (plaintiff) Granted

“Plaintiff's motion for clarification is GRANTED and his motion for reconsideration is DENIED (ECF No. 139)”

Dean v. Zhang
Reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment [ECF No. 52] is DENIED.”

Petconnect Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas
Judgment as matter of law (defendant) Denied

“DENIES Defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 378.”

New trial (defendant) Denied

“DENIES Defendants' motion for a new trial, ECF No. 379.”

Judgment as matter of law (defendant) Granted

“GRANTS Defendant Select Puppies Inc.'s motion for judgment on Claims Five and Six, ECF No. 377.”

Attorney fees (defendant) Denied

“DENIES Defendants' motion for attorney fees and costs, ECF No. 380.”

Attorney fees (plaintiff) Denied

“DENIES Plaintiff PetConnect Rescue Inc.'s motion for attorney fees and costs, ECF No. 382. ... DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for catalyst fees, ECF No. 383.”

Hightower v. County of San Diego
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court therefore dismisses the Eighth Amendment claims without prejudice”

Testone v. Go Macro, LLC
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Court DISMISSES the Complaint with leave to amend”

Candelaria v. Employer Solutions Staffing Group II, LLC
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“this case shall be REMANDED to the San Diego County Superior Court”

Sumana Forest Retreat v. County of San Diego
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the County’s motion”

Pliszka v. Axos Bank
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court grants in part and denies in part UFB’s motion”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 643 days (N = 11).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 211 days (N = 3).

Judge Huie's 2020-2022 civil docket includes securities enforcement and shareholder disputes, employee-benefits and insurance cases, prisoner civil-rights actions, trademark and fraud claims, contract disputes, and diversity removals.

Put Judge Huie's record to work

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

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