Todd Wallace Robinson

How Judge Robinson rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Position
district
Appointed by
Donald J. Trump (Republican)
Commissioned
2020-09-18
Education
University of California, Berkeley, B.A.; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. (cum laude)
Signed orders read
12

How Judge Robinson decides

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

What persuades

Declines to bind a non-signatory to an arbitration clause absent equitable estoppel, agency, or third-party-beneficiary grounds.

“the Court DENIES Dr. Lee's Motion to compel AbbVie to arbitration”

Procedural preferences

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismisses deficient claims without prejudice and gives detailed leave-to-amend instructions, especially to pro se plaintiffs, while allowing adequately pleaded claims to proceed.

“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion. Specifically, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims against the Fourth Amendment Defendants for his unlawful arrest and the unlawful search of his vehicle ... and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims ... for his unlawful initial detention and handcuffing ... for which the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend. Defendants' Motion is otherwise DENIED.”

Cautions

Enforces briefing deadlines strictly, denying a late extension request that would prejudice the party defending against summary judgment.

“under these circumstances, the requested extension is untimely and would prejudice Plaintiff, the party defending against summary judgment. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants' Ex Parte Application.”

Excludes expert apportionment opinions when the proponent does not establish that the underlying testing and resulting conclusions are reliable.

“The record before the Court fails to establish the reliability of Mr. Harrison’s and Dr. Biggs’ testing and their resulting conclusions. Because Dr. Oliver relies on those conclusions in forming his expert technical apportionment opinions, Taction has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the admissibility of Dr. Oliver’s testimony in that regard. Apple’s Daubert motion regarding Dr. Oliver’s technical apportionment opinions is therefore GRANTED.”

Signed rulings

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

Fisk v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (San Diego State University)
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' first cause of action for Denial of Equal Allocation of Athletic Financial Aid in violation of Title IX and third cause of action for Retaliation under Title IX. The Court otherwise DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.”

Stevenson v. Beard
Extension of time (defendant) Denied

“under these circumstances, the requested extension is untimely and would prejudice Plaintiff, the party defending against summary judgment. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants' Ex Parte Application.”

United States ex rel. 3729, LLC v. Express Scripts Holding Co.
Motion to seal (defendant) Granted

“The Court agrees that compelling reasons exist to file under seal Exhibit F to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Seal”

AbbVie Inc. v. Adcentrx Therapeutics Inc.
Compel arbitration (defendant) Denied

“the Court DENIES Dr. Lee's Motion to compel AbbVie to arbitration”

Motions to stay (defendant) Moot / procedural

“DENIES AS MOOT Adcentrx's and Dr. Lee's requests to stay this action pending arbitration of AbbVie's claims against Dr. Lee”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“the Court DENIES Adcentrx's and Dr. Lee's Motions to Dismiss. Accordingly, Defendants SHALL ANSWER AbbVie's First Amended Complaint”

Phillips v. White (Chula Vista Police Department)
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion. Specifically, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims against the Fourth Amendment Defendants for his unlawful arrest and the unlawful search of his vehicle ... and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims ... for his unlawful initial detention and handcuffing ... for which the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend. Defendants' Motion is otherwise DENIED.”

Motion for lodgment (plaintiff) Granted

“ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LODGMENT”

Valerie Perkins v. The Procter & Gamble Company
3:25-cv-01305-TWR
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant's Motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's injunctive claim. The Court DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion to the extent it seeks dismissal on grounds that Plaintiff does not plead a plausible theory of consumer deception.”

Kathleen-Marie Snow v. Tim Connolly, et al.
3:25-cv-00729-TWR
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Motion. Specifically, the Court DENIES the Motions as to Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against Sgt. De Loss and trespass claims against the Bail Agent Defendants and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims for assault and battery against the Bail Agent Defendants and for First Amendment retaliation and false imprisonment against Officer Aanestad. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's remaining claims.”

Cynthia-Yvette Brown v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
3:25-cv-02947-TWR
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Moot / procedural

“The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 44).”

Krista Freitag (Receiver) v. Sarah Christine Peterson, et al.
3:25-cv-02257-TWR
Motion for settlement approval (plaintiff) Granted

“Because the Court finds that the Settlement is in the best interest of the receivership estate, the Court GRANTS the Motion and APPROVES the Settlement.”

Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
3:21-cv-00812-TWR
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“In light of the foregoing, Apple's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”

Rivera Anaya v. United States
3:25-cr-00074-TWR / 3:25-cv-02643-TWR · 2026-08-03
Motion to vacate sentence under 2255 (defendant-petitioner) Denied

“In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Under 22 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 56).”

Taction Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
3:21-cv-00812-TWR-JLB · 2026-08-11
Motions to strike (plaintiff) Granted in part

“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Taction’s Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 488)”

Daubert motion (plaintiff) Granted in part

“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Taction’s Daubert Motions and MILs (ECF No, 494)”

Motion in limine (plaintiff) Granted in part
Daubert motion (defendant) Granted in part

“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Apple’s Daubert Motions and MILs (ECF No. 491)”

Motion in limine (defendant) Granted in part
Joint motion for agreed motions in limine (joint) Granted

“GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion Entering Agreed-Upon MILs (ECF No. 495)”

Motion for additional deposition and leave to strike (defendant) Denied

“DENIES Apple’s Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 530)”

Motion to seal (plaintiff) Granted

“GRANTS Taction’s Renewed Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 527, 535)”

Motion to seal (plaintiff) Granted
Motion to seal (defendant) Denied

“DENIES Apple’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 528.)”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 357 days (N = 9).

Median motion-to-ruling time: 75 days (N = 2).

The 2021-2023 caseload sample is dominated by immigration and drug prosecutions. The civil mix includes Title IX, prisoner and other civil-rights claims, wage-and-hour cases, contract disputes, trademark and trade-secret litigation, disability-access claims, and a return-of-property action. Several civil matters were referred to magistrate judges for pretrial proceedings.

Draft for Judge Robinson with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Robinson, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Robinson's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace