Kathryn A. Starnella
How Judge Starnella decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Will not resolve a limitations defense on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion where the receipt or accrual date is absent from the face of the complaint, and treats arguments or exhibits raised first on reply as waived.
“The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 37, is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED; 3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 28, is DENIED.”
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 complex consolidated litigation, she weighs the competing case-management interests and may stay discovery and individual claims when doing so avoids duplicated work while a class question is resolved.
“Weighing the relevant factors, the Court finds that four factors weigh in favor of staying discovery and one factor is neutral.”
Cautions
Enforces the 90-day EEOC filing deadline strictly, recommending dismissal with prejudice where the plaintiff concedes a late filing and the narrow equitable-tolling standard is not met.
“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”
Applies the domestic-relations exception to bar federal review of state custody disputes, recommending dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
“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.”
A plaintiff opposing qualified immunity must identify the violated right and show through legal authority that it was clearly established; silence on both steps supports dismissal.
“Plaintiff has made no effort to overcome the presumption of qualified immunity.”
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.”
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.
Put Judge Starnella's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Starnella actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Starnella's own signed orders and cites them.