Ruth Bermudez Montenegro

United States District Court for the Southern District of California district Appointed by Joseph R. Biden (Democratic) 11 signed orders read

How Judge Montenegro decides

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

What persuades

Grants a defendant's motion to dismiss but allows the plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the noted deficiencies.

“For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before July 28, 2023 which cures the deficiencies noted above.”

Procedural preferences

Denies a motion to strike, exercising discretion in favor of deciding cases on their merits.

“Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 62) and the requests set forth in Defendants’ Statement of Plaintiff’s Non-Opposition (Doc. 60) are DENIED. The Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ MSJ.”

Cautions

On a fully-developed record, grants a defendant's motion for summary judgment.

“Defendant Trader Joe's Company's Motion for Summary Judgment ('the Motion') is GRANTED.”

Signed rulings

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

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

“For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before July 28, 2023 which cures the deficiencies noted above.”

Ydigoras v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. All claims are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint in accordance with the directives above on or before January 5, 2026.”

Alexander v. Leadership Research Institute, Inc.
Motions to strike (defendant) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 62) and the requests set forth in Defendants’ Statement of Plaintiff’s Non-Opposition (Doc. 60) are DENIED. The Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ MSJ.”

Roditi v. New River Investments Inc.
Judgment as matter of law (defendant) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.”

Motion for new trial (defendant) Denied
In re Trader Joe's Company Dark Chocolate Litigation
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Trader Joe's Company's Motion for Summary Judgment ('the Motion') is GRANTED.”

The Estate of Michael Wilson v. County of San Diego
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART CCMG's Motion and County's Motion as detailed herein... DENIES AS MOOT CCMG's Motion for the wrongful death claim... DENIES CCMG's Motion concerning economic damages”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART CCMG's Motion and County's Motion as detailed herein... DENIES the County's Motion for qualified immunity... GRANTS the County's Motion for the supervisory claims for failure to train and failure to supervise and discipline against Defendant Gore... GRANTS the County's Motion for the punitive damages claim.”

Carlborg v. Department of Navy
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendants’ MSJ (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case.”

Pembrick v. Loyal Source Government Services, LLC
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Denied

“Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.”

Borrego Community Health Foundation v. Hebets
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Premier Defendants with leave to amend (Doc. 313)”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the three motions to dismiss and numerous joinders filed by the Dentist Defendants with”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Moot / procedural

“DENIES AS MOOT the motions to dismiss filed”

Taylor v. Starbucks Corporation
Motion to compel arbitration (defendant) Granted

“Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. This case is STAYED pending conclusion of arbitration pursuant to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement.”

Rasakhamdee v. Noem
Petition for writ of habeas corpus (petitioner) Granted

“the Petition (Doc. 1) is GRANTED. Accordingly: 14 1. Respondents are ORDERED to immediately release Petitioner from custody”

Motion for temporary restraining order (petitioner) Moot / procedural

“Petitioner’s TRO Motion (Doc. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 193 days (N = 8).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 171 days (N = 4).

The sampled docket has a substantial criminal component typical of a border district, alongside securities, civil-rights, disability-access, Social Security, habeas, copyright, and medical-malpractice matters. Montenegro's 2026 docket is dominated by alien-detainee habeas petitions and is not representative of her broader merits caseload. Many civil matters were referred to magistrate judges for pretrial proceedings.

Put Judge Montenegro's record to work

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

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