Cecilia Maria Altonaga
How Judge Altonaga rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Altonaga
Cecilia M. Altonaga is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Altonaga received a commission on May 7, 2003.
Judge Altonaga's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Altonaga's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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).
How Judge Altonaga decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Lugardo v. Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Altonaga denied the defendant's summary-judgment motion after finding that the plaintiff's evidence, although sparse, created a triable issue on every claim in that case.
“Plaintiff's evidence, although admittedly sparse, creates a triable issue on every claim.”
In Mijne v. Experian Information Solutions, Altonaga granted the defendant summary judgment on the FCRA claim because its report was neither inaccurate nor objectively misleading.
“Defendant's report was neither inaccurate nor objectively misleading, so Plaintiff's 'case goes no further.'”
In Reinsurance Partners Investments v. Maite, she denied a motion to dismiss an amended counterclaim and left fact-intensive defenses for summary judgment or trial.
“these arguments are more appropriate for summary judgment‘ or, where the facts are disputed, at trial.”
In one default dispute, prompt action and the absence of prejudice supported setting aside the clerk’s default so the claims could be tested on evidence.
“the preference for deciding a case on its merits — and testing the sufficiency of a party’s claims and damages requests with evidence”
In a child-return petition, the court considered an asserted mature-child exception but ordered both siblings returned after weighing the treaty’s return preference and the effects of separating them.
“protecting sibling bonds is insufficient to overcome the Convention’s strong preference for return.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant, Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 36] is GRANTED. Final judgment will issue by separate order.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 15] is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 35] is GRANTED.”
“Defendants, John Hasan Ruiz, La Ley Con John H. Ruiz, P.A., and 620 Arvida Holdings LLC's Joint Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 36] is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Counts II, IV, and V are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant, Jewish Community Services of South Florida Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 38] and Plaintiff, Lisset Infante's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 42] are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff, Lisset Infante's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 42] are DENIED.”
“Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 530 Mashta LLC's Motion to Dismiss Maite's Amended Counterclaim [ECF No. 44] is DENIED.”
“County’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 25] is DENIED.”
“Defendant, Millicom International Cellular S.A.'s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 17] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Counts II-VII of the Complaint [ECF No. 7-2] are dismissed. Plaintiff, Multiphone Latin America Inc. has until September 10, 2025 to file an amended complaint.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File [a] Sur-Reply [ECF No. 22] is DENIED as moot.”
“Defendant, City of Miami’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 36] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant on Count II of the Complaint [ECF No. 1].”
“Defendant, Rockhill Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendants, City of Hialeah, Orlando Amador, Alain Pineiro, and Juan Diaz’s Partial Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED in part. Count VIII is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendant, Alejandro Guardiola’s Motion to Dismiss . . . [ECF No. 63] is GRANTED. The Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 26] is dismissed without prejudice as against Guardiola.”
“Plaintiffs, Aroma360 LLC and Hotel Collection LLC’s [Daubert] Motion [ECF No. 66] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendant, Scentiment, LLC’s Omnibus Daubert Motion [ECF No. 67] is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 33 days (N = 5).
The current reviewed matters include many 2026 alien-detainee habeas petitions arising from immigration detention in South Florida. The reviewed 2021 civil matters include commercial, contract, wage-and-hour, insurance, consumer-reporting, disability-access, and patent cases, many of which settled or were administratively closed. This provides descriptive context rather than a caseload-wide rate.
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 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, not for Judge Altonaga: 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 | 8,196 | 3.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 848 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 7,287 | 3.5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 16 | 10.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 45 | 17.1 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 8,196 | 3.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 7,755 | 3.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 20,408 | 0 months |
| Sep 2022 | 8,287 | 3.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 8,536 | 3.2 months |
| Sep 2020 | 8,657 | 3.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 9,471 | 3.7 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 Altonaga with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Altonaga, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Altonaga's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace