Joaquin V.E. Manibusan Jr.
How Judge Manibusan rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Manibusan no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Manibusan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Manibusan required parties to complete the prescribed good-faith conference process before asking the court to resolve a discovery dispute.
“Had the parties attempted to meet in person as required by the Local Rules, the court believes they could have reached a resolution of this dispute without the need for further court action.”
In consolidated insurance disputes, Manibusan applied the strong federal policy favoring arbitration when the claims fell within the policy's arbitration provision.
“In light of the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, the court hereby grants both of Lexington’s motions for stay.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“In light of the strong federal policy favoring arbitration, the court hereby grants both of Lexington’s motions for stay.”
“Thus, the court grants the Motion and orders that all discovery be stayed pending the resolution of the pending motions to dismiss and the issue of whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.”
“The undersigned hereby recommends the following: (1) that the Chief Judge find that service of process was improper, but in lieu of dismissal, the proper remedy would be to quash said service and order Plaintiff to properly serve Defendants within a reasonable time period; (2) that the Chief Judge deny the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) with regard to the direct action claim, that the Chief Judge stay these proceedings until the appeals pending in the Ninth Circuit in CV 11-00032 and CV 11-00034 are resolved; (4) that the Chief Judge deny the motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens; and (5) that the Chief Judge stay this proceeding and compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate her claim in Norway, but only after (a) proper service has been made on the Defendants and (b) the pending appeals are resolved.”
“Accordingly, the court recommends that the Chief Judge deny the Motion to Dismiss it its entirety.”
“Because the court finds that a timely jury demand was made, the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Jury Trial.”
“Accordingly, the court recommends that the Chief Judge dismiss the Petition because it was untimely filed.”
After a petty-offense bench trial, Manibusan found reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant; the order states, “This matter (Citation Number 6887663) is dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendants are entitled to receive from Plaintiffs the sum of $8,975.00 as their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs shall make this payment within 30 days of this order.”
“Based on the above analysis, the court (1) DENIES Majestic Blue’s Motion for Credit from Dongwon Settlement, ECF No. 550; (2) DENIES Majestic Blue’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Account for Dongwon Settlement, ECF No. 562; (3) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment, ECF No. 570; and (4) GRANTS Majestic Blue’s Cross-Motion to Amend/Correct the Judgment, ECF NO. 579.”
“Based on the above analysis, the court denies the Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of the WAT and OLS tests and the breath tests.”
“With regard to the Defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of the HGN test, the court finds this matter to be moot.”
“the court recommends the Chief Judge grant the motion in part and deny it in part as follows: (1) dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiff’s claim of a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and (2) dismiss without prejudice the Plaintiff’s claims that the Defendants violated his Equal Protection Clause rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
“Judge Manibusan recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 7 days (N = 5).
The sampled matters included employment discrimination, territorial tax, insurance, airline personal injury, post-conviction petitions, petty criminal matters, and miscellaneous enforcement proceedings. The grounded docket outcomes come from a consent employment case and a separately reviewed personal-injury insurance case.
A historical record
Judge Manibusan no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.