Thomas J. Whelan
How Judge Whelan rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Whelan
Thomas J. Whelan is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Whelan received a commission on October 22, 1998. Judge Whelan assumed senior status on August 15, 2010.
Judge Whelan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Whelan, 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
Filing
Deliver courtesy copies of filings over 20 pages directly to chambers.
“Courtesy copies of filings exceeding twenty (20) pages shall be delivered directly to chambers.”
Motions
For a motion hearing, choose a Monday 28 to 45 days after the motion is filed.
“Before filing a motion, Counsel or the filing party shall select the hearing date by choosing a Monday that is between 28 days and 45 days from the motion’s actual filing date.”
Motions
File a statement of nonopposition at least 14 days before the hearing if a party will not oppose the motion.
“A party that determines that it will not oppose a given motion shall file a statement of non-opposition no later than 14 days before the hearing date.”
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 Whelan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a mural-destruction case, Whelan allowed the artists’ federal visual-artists-rights claim to proceed without requiring a specific allegation of how the removal injured their honor or reputation.
“Neither formulation requires a plaintiff to specify how the destruction of the ‘work of visual art’ was prejudicial.”
Procedural preferences
In Johnston and Dickins v. Irontown Housing, he denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the plaintiffs' ex parte application.
“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
In Titus v. City of La Mesa, he denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but struck the punitive damages request against the city.
“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.”
In Moses v. GMAC Mortgage, he dismissed the TILA damages and fraud claims without leave to amend, while allowing amendment of the quiet title claim.
“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.”
In Reyes v. Bulwark Construction, he granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice.
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Bulwark Construction’s motion to dismiss all claims WITH PREJUDICE. (Mtn. to Dismiss [Doc. 4].)”
He expects counsel to reproduce judicial language exactly; in Estate of Brandon Yates he cautioned the county after its brief attributed wording to a cited decision that the decision did not contain.
“the County is cautioned that quotations should be exact replications of the court’s language.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“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].”
“the Court finds an exception to Rule 12(c) is not warranted. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs' motion is premature.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is DENIED.”
“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Selene's motion to”
“GRANTS Trustee Corp.'s motion to dismiss”
“the Court GRANTS the Motion [Doc. 6] without leave”
“the first cause of action WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND and DENIES”
“Specifically, it is GRANTED as to claims one”
“The United States' motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiff’s pending motions [Doc. 24, 25, 26] are denied without prejudice to her raising them in an appropriate court”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Correctional Healthcare’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 43]. To the extent the TPC seeks indemnity and contribution for liability under Plaintiff’s section 1983 causes of action, such claims are barred. The motion is denied as to liability under the Bane Act.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition [Doc. 36].”
“The Clerk of the Court shall close the district court file and TERMINATE the motion for a status [Doc. 40].”
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.
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 3 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 2 |
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 Whelan: 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 Whelan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Whelan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Whelan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace