Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Court for the Southern District of California district Senior status Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 9 signed orders read

How Judge Whelan decides

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

Procedural preferences

Enforces a freely-negotiated forum-selection clause that splits forum by work location rather than dismissing, and is reluctant to apply Colorado River abstention.

“the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. 4], Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. 5], and Plaintiffs' ex parte application [Doc. 18].”

Cautions

Denies qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage where the complaint shows no probable cause, distinguishing QI cases decided at summary judgment, and refuses judicial notice of a police report's contents on a motion to dismiss.

“the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. 3], but ORDERS the request for punitive damages against Defendant City of La Mesa STRUCK from the Complaint.”

Enforces TILA's one-year damages limitations period strictly where the deceptive documents were facially evident, while preserving the three-year rescission claim, and dismisses repleaded fraud without leave after a second failed try.

“the Court GRANTS IN-PART and DENIES IN-PART GMACM's Motion (Doc. 20) and ORDERS as follows: 1. The TILA-damage claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend. 2. The fraud-based claims (causes of action 8 and 9) are DISMISSED without leave to amend. 3. The claim to quiet title is DISMISSED with leave to amend.”

Signed rulings

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

Johnston and Dickins v. Irontown Housing Company, Inc.
3:13-cv-00523-W-BLM · 2013-07-17
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss [Doc. 4], Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. 5], and Plaintiffs' ex parte application [Doc. 18].”

Judgment on the pleadings (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“the Court finds an exception to Rule 12(c) is not warranted. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs' motion is premature.”

Titus v. City of La Mesa
3:13-cv-01909-W-KSC · 2014-05-13
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss [Doc. 3], but ORDERS the request for punitive damages against Defendant City of La Mesa STRUCK from the Complaint.”

Moses v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC
3:09-cv-01961-W-BLM · 2010-07-14
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS IN-PART and DENIES IN-PART GMACM's Motion (Doc. 20) and ORDERS as follows: 1. The TILA-damage claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend. 2. The fraud-based claims (causes of action 8 and 9) are DISMISSED without leave to amend. 3. The claim to quiet title is DISMISSED with leave to amend.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted in part

“4. The requests for monetary damages under TILA, and Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 are STRUCK. 5. The request for punitive damages is STRUCK. 6. The prayer for a preliminary injunction is STRUCK. ... GMACM's request to strike the request for rescission and attorney's fees is denied.”

Pates v. Quality Loan Service Company
3:10-cv-00296-W-NLS · 2010-05-28
Motion for reconsideration (plaintiff) Denied

“In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is DENIED.”

Bennett v. Navy Federal Credit Union
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS the motion [Doc. 44].”

Rose v. Selene Finance, LP
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Selene's motion to”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“GRANTS Trustee Corp.'s motion to dismiss”

Lee v. United States Department of the Navy
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“the Court GRANTS the Motion [Doc. 6] without leave”

Reel v. City of El Centro
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the first cause of action WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and DENIES”

The Estate of Valeria Tachiquin Alvarado v. Tackett
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Specifically, it is GRANTED as to claims one”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“The United States' motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 103.5 days (N = 10).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 84 days (N = 1).

Judge Whelan's post-senior-status docket includes a high-volume, fast-settling group of ADA Title III accessibility cases and FCRA or FDCPA consumer-finance suits. His earlier active-era merits docket also included mortgage and TILA disputes, Section 1983 civil-rights actions, and consumer-construction cases. This describes caseload composition, not motion outcomes.

Put Judge Whelan's record to work

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

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