Christine Marie Arguello
How Judge Arguello rules, drawn from 27 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Arguello
Christine M. Arguello is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Arguello received a commission on October 21, 2008. Judge Arguello assumed senior status on July 15, 2022.
Judge Arguello's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Arguello, as published on the court's website (checked October 23, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Contacting chambers
In criminal cases, communicate with chambers only by email.
“Communication with Chambers is done by EMAIL ONLY.”
Filing
In criminal cases, submit documents sent directly to chambers as editable Word attachments; PDF attachments are unacceptable.
“parties should submit documents as an editable email attachment in Microsoft Word format addressed to [email protected]. PDF is not acceptable.”
Motions
File sentencing-related motions or statements at least 14 days before the sentencing hearing.
“Sentencing-related motions or statements must be filed no later than fourteen (14) days before the sentencing hearing.”
Motions
In criminal cases, file objections to Rule 404(b) notices within seven days after the notice is filed.
“Objections to Rule 404(b) Notices shall be filed no later than seven (7) days after the Rule 404(b) Notice is filed.”
Discovery
Before filing a criminal discovery motion under the discovery order or Rule 16, confer or make reasonable good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel.
“unless counsel for the moving party, prior to filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel”
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 9, 2026).
How Judge Arguello decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Specific unresolved factual questions precluded summary judgment on the discrimination, retaliation, and outrageous-conduct claims in the reviewed employment case.
“Upon consideration of the Motion, the related briefing, and the applicable law, the Court finds that there are genuine disputes of material fact that preclude summary judgment on Dr. Judson’s claims for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-301, et seq. (‘CADA’); retaliation under Title VII and CADA; and outrageous conduct”
In the reviewed copyright case, concrete disputes over ownership, copying, and where the code was hosted prevented either side from obtaining summary judgment on infringement.
“Upon review of the parties’ filings and the evidence referenced therein, the Court determines that genuine issues of material fact preclude the Court from entering summary judgment in favor of either party on Plaintiff’s sole claim of copyright infringement.”
Procedural preferences
When no party objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation in the reviewed case, the court reviewed the record for clear error before adopting the recommendation.
“Based on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Varholak’s thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations are correct and that ‘there is no clear error on the face of the record.’”
A general objection that did not identify a factual or legal error was insufficient to trigger de novo review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation in the reviewed case.
“Caldwell’s Objection to Judge Mix’s Recommendation is not sufficiently specific to invoke de novo review. The Objection fails to identify any factual or legal errors in the Recommendation, and it fails to provide any legitimate basis for rejecting the Recommendation.”
Cautions
Expressly conceding that affirmative defenses could not be maintained led to summary judgment against those defenses in the reviewed copyright case.
“Defendant concedes in its Response that it ‘cannot maintain its affirmative defenses of laches, first sale, lack of notice, collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, failure to join an indispensable party, exhaustion, and fair use.’ (Doc. # 137 at 19.) The Court therefore grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to these affirmative defenses.”
In the reviewed trial-evidence case, the court struck a defense motion in limine after repeated violations of its eight-page limit and a late request for leave.
“Structural Technologies, LLC’s non-compliant Motion In Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony From Kirk Meyer or to Disqualify Kirk Meyer as an Expert Witness (Doc. # 160) is summarily stricken.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“FURTHER ORDERED Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 42) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. # 8) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Recommendation.”
“FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Medac, Inc.'s Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 24) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 114) is DENIED IN PART as to its claim for copyright infringement and certain affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant. ... FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 114) is GRANTED IN PART as to the following affirmative defenses asserted by Defendant: laches, first sale, lack of notice, collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, failure to join an indispensable party, exhaustion, and fair use.”
“FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 122) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 46) is DENIED.”
“FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Expedited Ruling on Issue of Law (Doc. # 53) is DENIED. ... FURTRHER ORDERED that and Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Recognize Proof of Service (Doc. # 68) is DENIED. ... FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. # 35) is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 18) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Plaintiff’s claim for prospective injunctive relief is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Strike Class Allegations is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Retained Expert Jacqueline Bloink (Doc. # 31) is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion Default Judgment Against Defendant Brian Mauch (Doc. #14) is hereby GRANTED;”
“The Parties’ Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. # 40) is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. # 27) is DENIED AS MOOT;”
“Dismiss (Doc. # 59) is hereby GRANTED as to all claims. All claims in this action are”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 14) is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Two civil terminated durations were captured (San Juan, 790 days: a case that, after she granted a motion to compel arbitration, was eventually dismissed for failure to prosecute after plaintiff's counsel withdrew). The recency windows are criminal-heavy. This is not a distribution; a larger civil terminated-docket sample would be needed before reading it as one.
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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 9 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 11 |
| Mar 2024 | 3 | 10 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 8 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 4 | 8 |
| 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 District of Colorado, not for Judge Arguello: 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 | 2,669 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 497 | 7.6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,076 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 63 | 26.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 33 | 39.3 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,669 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,704 | 7.4 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,560 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,614 | 9 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,637 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,637 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,577 | 7.5 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 Arguello with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Arguello, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Arguello's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace