Kathryn A. Starnella
How Judge Starnella rules, drawn from 25 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Starnella
Kathryn A. Starnella began serving as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Colorado in August 2023. She earned her law degree from Northwestern University and previously clerked for United States District Judge Christine M. Arguello.
Judge Starnella's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Starnella, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
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 Starnella decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
In Bautista v. Charles Schwab, Starnella recommended denying a limitations-based motion to dismiss because the complaint did not allege when or how the plaintiff received her right-to-sue notice; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“the Court is left with an unknown date of receipt, which does not clearly bar this suit on its face.”
Where filings relied on nonexistent or materially misdescribed authorities, she recommended striking the affected filings and requiring a citation-by-citation verification table in future submissions.
“Plaintiffs shall accompany all future filings with a detailed certification, in table format, that: (1) lists each cited authority, (2) certifies that Plaintiffs verified each citation’s existence, (3) certifies that each citation supports the stated proposition or contains the articulated holding, and (4) identifies where Plaintiffs obtained the cited authority.”
In Hiehle v. Aber, she stayed discovery on the individual claims pending a class-certification decision after four case-management factors favored a stay.
“Weighing the relevant factors, the Court finds that four factors weigh in favor of staying discovery and one factor is neutral.”
In Prairie Walk Condominium Association v. American Insurance, she denied Rule 11 sanctions because the filed motion differed from the served version and the defendant corrected the challenged paper during the safe-harbor period.
“By operation of Rule 11(c)(2), Plaintiff was barred from filing its sanctions motion after Defendant took this appropriate corrective action.”
In Mao, she permitted alternative subpoena service after finding the proposed email address and mailing addresses reasonably likely to reach the accountant.
“Defendant’s proposed methods of alternative service are reasonably calculated to result in Myers’ receipt of the subpoena.”
Cautions
In Slayton v. Bayfield School District, she recommended dismissal of an untimely discrimination suit; the district judge adopted that recommendation after rejecting equitable tolling.
“In sum, the Court agrees with Judge Starnella that Plaintiff’s initial complaint was filed beyond the applicable 90-day deadline and Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that equitable tolling is warranted.”
In Surface v. Burke, she recommended dismissing a federal challenge arising from a state child-custody dispute under the domestic-relations exception; the district judge adopted her recommendation.
“Magistrate Judge Starnella recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the domestic-relations exception.”
In Masters v. Soto, Starnella found that the plaintiff had made no effort to overcome qualified immunity and recommended granting the defendants’ dismissal motions.
“Plaintiff has made no effort to overcome the presumption of qualified immunity.”
In Cart Driver-Highlands, she altered a consent judgment because the third-party liability dispute lacked a live controversy and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
“Plaintiff’s liability coverage claims are, at best, not ripe”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 37, is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED; 3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 28, is DENIED.”
“The Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Starnella's Recommendation, ECF No. 47, as an order of this Court; (3) Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22, is GRANTED”
“The Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella's Recommendation and ORDERS: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 20) is GRANTED.”
“The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella [Doc. 31] is ADOPTED; (3) Defendant Bayfield School District's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF 19) [Doc. 25] is GRANTED”
“The Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Starnella's Recommendation, ECF No. 15, in its entirety as an order of this Court. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 7.”
“Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)”
“ORDER affirming and adopting 25 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella; denying as moot 16 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.”
“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the following Motions be DENIED as moot: • Defendant Nest Home Lending, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss [#19]; and • Defendants Rocket Mortgage, LLC and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [#22]”
“IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Soto’s Motion to Dismiss [#27] be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Soto be DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendant Gallegos’s Motion to Dismiss [#62] be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Gallegos be DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Defendants Sanchez, Ruybal, Schultz, and Kelly’s Motion to Dismiss [#86] be GRANTED”
“the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 77, AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 73, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, ECF No. 62.”
“Defendant Abbott Laboratories’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(2) and 12(B)(6), ECF No. 112, is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART;”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Thompson’s Counterclaims, ECF No. 138, is GRANTED;”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Aber’s Motion [#89] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hiele Plaintiffs’ Motion [#90] is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 110) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Judge Starnella's caseload includes a 2026 surge of directly assigned alien-detainee habeas petitions, all still pending, and roughly twenty older civil and consent cases inherited from her predecessor, Magistrate Judge Kristen L.
- Mix. Substantive rulings issued before September 2023 belong to Judge Mix and are not attributed to Starnella.
- Because the inherited matters reflect predecessor work and the pending habeas petitions have no termination dates, no overall case-duration distribution is reported.
- Starnella's own final rulings come from consent cases she presided over, while her referral work consists of recommendations to district judges.
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 | 1 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 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 District of Colorado, not for Judge Starnella: 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 Starnella with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Starnella, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Starnella's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace