Todd Wallace Robinson
How Judge Robinson rules, drawn from 23 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Robinson
Todd Wallace Robinson is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Robinson received a commission on September 18, 2020.
Judge Robinson's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Robinson, 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
Provide courtesy copies of filings over 20 pages, including attachments and exhibits, as soon as practicable after filing.
“Parties must provide the Court with courtesy copies of any filings exceeding twenty (20) pages in length, including all attachments and exhibits, as soon as practicable after filing.”
Motions
File and serve motion papers within three calendar days after receiving a hearing date from chambers.
“Motion papers must be filed and served within three (3) calendar days of obtaining a motion hearing date from chambers.”
Motions
Brief multiple motions noticed for the same hearing date in one memorandum of no more than 25 pages when the same counsel represents the moving parties.
“the motions must be briefed together in a single memorandum of points and authorities not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length.”
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 Robinson decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In AbbVie’s case, he denied Dr. Lee’s motion to compel AbbVie to arbitration.
“the Court DENIES Dr. Lee's Motion to compel AbbVie to arbitration”
Procedural preferences
In Phillips v. White, he granted dismissal in part: unlawful-arrest and vehicle-search claims were dismissed with prejudice, while initial-detention and handcuffing claims received leave to amend; a fabrication claim survived.
“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.”
Robinson denied an application to seal exhibits without prejudice when the proposed exhibits were not lodged, preventing him from evaluating whether redaction or partial sealing would protect the children’s privacy.
“Plaintiffs have not lodged the proposed sealed exhibits, the Court cannot determine whether”
Cautions
In Stevenson’s summary-judgment briefing, he denied the defendants’ late extension request because it would prejudice the plaintiff.
“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.”
In Taction Technology’s patent case, he excluded Dr. Oliver’s technical apportionment opinions because their supporting tests and conclusions had not been shown 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.”
He denied preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice where the prison conduct at issue did not relate to the claims in the operative complaint.
“the relief Plaintiff seeks through her Motion for Preliminary Injunction does not relate to the relief sought in her operative Second Amended Complaint”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Court also GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.”
“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.”
“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”
“the Court DENIES Dr. Lee's Motion to compel AbbVie to arbitration”
“DENIES AS MOOT Adcentrx's and Dr. Lee's requests to stay this action pending arbitration of AbbVie's claims against Dr. Lee”
“the Court DENIES Adcentrx's and Dr. Lee's Motions to Dismiss. Accordingly, Defendants SHALL ANSWER AbbVie's First Amended Complaint”
“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.”
“ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LODGMENT”
“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.”
“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.”
“The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 44).”
“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.”
“In light of the foregoing, Apple's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.”
“In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Under 22 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 56).”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Taction’s Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 488)”
“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Taction’s Daubert Motions and MILs (ECF No, 494)”
“GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Apple’s Daubert Motions and MILs (ECF No. 491)”
“GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion Entering Agreed-Upon MILs (ECF No. 495)”
“DENIES Apple’s Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 530)”
“GRANTS Taction’s Renewed Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 527, 535)”
“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.
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 | 2 |
| 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 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2024 | 4 | 7 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 1 | 9 |
| Sep 2021 | 132 | 30 |
| Mar 2021 | 20 | 17 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 6 |
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 Robinson: 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 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