David Alan Ezra
How Judge Ezra rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ezra
David Alan Ezra is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge Ezra received a commission on May 20, 1988. Judge Ezra assumed senior status on June 27, 2012.
Judge Ezra's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Ezra's own (checked October 9, 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 9, 2026).
How Judge Ezra decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an environmental enforcement case under the Clean Water Act, the judge counts a violation of a monthly-average discharge limit as a separate violation for every day of that month (not one violation per month), reasoning that any other reading would let a polluter concentrate a month's worth of violations into a single 'Pollution Day' and escape most of the statutory per-day penalty.
“with respect to claim three, this Court finds that a violation of a monthly average will be counted as a violation of every day of the month.”
The judge treats an arbitrator's finding on a distinct legal question (just cause for a workplace termination) as no bar to relitigating a related but different federal statutory question (whether protected leave was a negative factor in that same termination), refusing to let collateral estoppel foreclose an FMLA claim on that basis.
“the issue before the arbitrator was different from the issue in front of this Court. The issue before the arbitrator was whether or not there was just cause for the termination from employment. Whereas, the issue before this Court is whether the taking of FMLA leave was a negative factor in the termination decision.”
Procedural preferences
Facing a defendant's speedy-trial-based motion to dismiss an indictment, the judge walks through each continuance in the record individually to determine who actually caused the delay, and treats continuances the defendant requested or did not oppose as weighing heavily against dismissal: discovery delays alone, without evidence of bad faith, are treated as negligence at most, not misconduct.
“the vast majority of the delay (approximately 17 of the 23 months) was due to either the fact that the case was designated complex, that a co-defendant's counsel withdrew, court congestion, or Defendant's own motion.”
In Christian v. Frank, Ezra denied a Rule 60 request to reopen a habeas case after an evidentiary hearing, finding no clear and convincing evidence of fraud. The trial record and an earlier expert report showed that the petitioner already knew about the disputed 911-tape audio.
“The record demonstrates that Petitioner and his counsel knew that the 911 tape contained audio of a person uttering the described words prior to the habeas proceedings in 2008.”
In Countrywide Home Loans v. Wilkerson, Ezra denied an emergency stay of a bankruptcy-court order because the appellants had not first sought relief from the bankruptcy judge or shown that judge was unavailable. He also rejected the request on its merits.
“Appellants have failed to move in the first instance for an emergency stay in the bankruptcy court and have failed to show that the bankruptcy judge was unavailable or that the instant request was denied. Accordingly, Appellants are procedurally barred from bringing the instant TRO in front of this Court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“For the reasons stated above, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration as outlined herein.”
“Therefore, Defendant's motion is DENIED.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Guardia's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant County of Hawai'i's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.,'s Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court: (1) DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Superseding Indictment; and (2) DENIES Defendant's Request for Evidentiary Hearing.”
“For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.”
“For all the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Appellants' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. # 13.)”
“Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's remaining cause of action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and per Plaintiff’s request, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s causes of action seeking damages based on Plaintiff’s EEOC complaint, Plaintiff’s actions as a ‘whistle blower,’ and Defendants’ acts of ‘negligence’ and ‘omission,’ leaving only Plaintiff’s claim for the replacement of property allegedly taken from him at the time of his imprisonment.”
“Additionally, because the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint, FAC, and SAC, the Court also DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.”
“This Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 51) and GRANTS Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 56). The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants.”
“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order Denying Defendant's request for a sentence below the applicable statutory minimum. (Doc. # 308.)”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled Hawaii cases span consumer finance, employment, environmental enforcement, habeas and prisoner litigation, commercial disputes, and civil-rights class actions. They provide a bounded view of a broad general district docket.
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 |
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 District of Hawaii, not for Judge Ezra: 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 | 570 | 4.9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 152 | 3.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 398 | 5.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 12 | 28.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 8 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 570 | 4.9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 624 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 502 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2022 | 472 | 9.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 496 | 9.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 523 | 7.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 511 | 9.1 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 Ezra with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ezra, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ezra's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace