Kenneth J. Mansfield

How Judge Mansfield rules, drawn from 30 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii
Position
Magistrate judge
Commissioned
April 1, 2016
Education
Middlebury College (B.A., cum laude, double major in Economics and Marine Science); University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D.)
Signed orders read
30

About Judge Mansfield

Kenneth J. Mansfield has served as a United States magistrate judge in the District of Hawaii since April 2016 and later became chief magistrate judge. He earned his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania and practiced commercial litigation in Honolulu before joining the bench.

Judge Mansfield's practices and standing orders

Rules for cases before Judge Mansfield, 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.

Key rules

Discovery

Emergency discovery telephone conferences are reserved for narrow, discrete disputes.

“The dispute must concern a narrow and discrete issue”

Discovery

Call chambers to arrange an emergency discovery telephone conference and how it will be recorded.

“Counsel must call chambers and make scheduling arrangements with the assigned judge’s staff, including how the telephone conference will be memorialized”

Trial

In a civil trial before a magistrate judge, file motions in limine by the Rule 16 scheduling-order deadline.

“motions in limine must be filed in accordance with the deadlines set forth in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order”

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).

Key rules from these orders · The court's local rules ↗

How Judge Mansfield decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In evaluating a plaintiff's repeated in forma pauperis applications, the judge treated major inconsistencies between successive financial disclosures (rather than any single number) as the key problem justifying dismissal.

“There were major discrepancies between Plaintiff’s Second IFP Application and Third IFP Application.”

When assessing a contested good-faith settlement, the judge treated arm's-length negotiations and amounts tied to a related bellwether judgment as evidence of a rational settlement, while rejecting speculation that trial might have produced more.

“The settlement amounts are tethered to the Feindt bellwether trial decision. The settlements reflect a logical, fair, and good faith resolution of this complex and contentious case in light of the risks, costs, and uncertainties of further litigation.”

Procedural preferences

On an unopposed default-judgment motion, the judge worked systematically through all seven Eitel factors even though the outcome was not seriously contested, rather than resting on the defendant's non-appearance alone.

“The Court finds that the totality of the Eitel factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Evans.”

Cautions

In a default-judgment recommendation, the judge declined to treat a defendant’s nonresponse as enough: the movant still had to establish jurisdiction, address the Eitel factors, and support its pleading.

“The Court’s role on a motion for default judgment is not ministerial, and even in the absence of a substantive opposition, the Court cannot serve as a rubber stamp.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Petty v. Souza
1:23-cv-00008-HG-KJM · 2023-06-15

Mansfield noted that the court had already denied Petty’s second and third fee-waiver applications. After two filing-fee checks bounced and Petty neither paid nor filed a revised application, Mansfield recommended dismissal: “Accordingly, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the district court DISMISS this action.” This order made no new ruling on an in forma pauperis application.

Eve Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-16
1:20-cv-00475-DKW-KJM · 2021-06-21
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Corey R. Evans (ECF No. 35) as follows: (1) Award Plaintiff a total of $4,000.00 for statutory damages; (2) Award Plaintiff a total of $505.40 for costs; (3) Award Plaintiff a total of $5,961.15 for attorneys’ fees; and (4) Award Plaintiff a permanent injunction against Defendant Evans’ continued infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright in the Work.”

Clement v. Taylor
1:16-cv-00351 · 2017-03-02
Habeas corpus 2254 (petitioner) Denied

“The Court FINDS that the state trial and appellate courts did not violate Clement's due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments... The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that Clement's Petition be DENIED.”

United States Fire Insurance Company v. Siu's Electric Corp.
1:18-cv-00233 · 2018-12-31
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, this Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT Plaintiff U.S. Fire's Motion for Default Judgment only as to Ramiro.”

U.S. Bank National Association v. Franco
1:16-cv-00301 · 2016-09-01
Motions to remand (plaintiff) Granted

“Based on the foregoing, the Court FINDS that removal to federal court is not proper and the case should be remanded to state court because Defendants cannot establish federal-question or diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The Court thus RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT Plaintiff's Motion.”

Hawaii Carpenters Trust Funds v. Tricon, Inc.
1:18-cv-00468 · 2019-04-08
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“In accordance with the foregoing, this Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that Default Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Trustees of the Hawaii Carpenters Trust Funds and against Defendant a default Judgment against Defendant Tricon, Inc. for contributions in the sum of $108,837.07, inclusive of liquidated damages, 12% interest, 401(k) Lost Earnings Interest, and attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $4,084.13.”

Dai v. Nikaido
1:17-cv-00271 · 2018-06-25
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted in part

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART DEFENDANTS CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, ROBERT J. KRONING, GUY INOUYE, AND JASON NIKAIDO'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT... The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss: a. Count VI of the FAC... however, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint with respect to his Conspiracy Claim... 2. The Court DENIES Defendants' motion to dismiss Count IV of the FAC- Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim.”

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Ching
1:16-cv-00418 · 2017-02-23
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, this Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that [14] Plaintiff State Farm's Motion for Default Judgment or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment against Defendant Shaun Ching be GRANTED.”

Sommers v. Okamoto Realty
1:16-cv-00558 · 2017-01-04
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Denied

“After reviewing the parties' submissions and the record established in this action, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and exercise its discretion to quash service.”

Default judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Because Defendants were not properly served with the Summons and Complaint, they have no obligation to file an answer as of this date and default cannot be entered against them. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Enter Default Judgment is DENIED.”

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Alualu
1:16-cv-00039 · 2016-11-22
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, this Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff State Farm's Motion for Default Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment against Defendant Ionatana Alualu be GRANTED.”

Greys Avenue Partners, LLC v. Theyers
1:19-cv-00079 · 2021-07-22
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“Based on the foregoing, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment and award Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $2,087,137.44.”

Clark v. Trisler
1:22-cv-00559 · 2025-04-04
Motion for attorneys fees (defendant) Granted in part

“Based on the foregoing, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees (ECF No. 163). The Court RECOMMENDS that the district court award Defendant his reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $107,953.88. The Court RECOMMENDS that the district court DENY the Motion in all other respects.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sampled consent matters include personal-injury removals, employment and civil-rights claims, Social Security appeals, and copyright litigation. Many ended through settlement, stipulated dismissal, or case-management orders before a dispositive ruling.

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 months0
Bench trials submitted more than six months0
Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months0
Social Security appeals pending more than six months0
Civil cases pending more than three years0
ReportMotions over six monthsCases over three years
Mar 202600
Sep 202500
Mar 202500
Sep 202400
Mar 202410
Sep 202300
Mar 202300
Sep 202201
Mar 202200
Sep 202101
Mar 202100
Sep 202000

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 Mansfield: 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.

CasesMedian time
All civil cases closed5704.9 months
Closed with no court action1523.5 months
Closed before pretrial3985.8 months
Closed during or after pretrial1228.9 months
Closed during trial8not reported
12 months endingCases closedMedian time
Sep 20255704.9 months
Sep 20246244.8 months
Sep 20235026.5 months
Sep 20224729.6 months
Sep 20214969.4 months
Sep 20205237.1 months
Sep 20195119.1 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 Mansfield with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mansfield, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Mansfield's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace