Kevin S.C. Chang
How Judge Chang rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Chang no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Chang
Kevin S.C. Chang served as a United States magistrate judge in the District of Hawaii from December 2000 until his retirement in 2019. He previously sat on Hawaii’s First Circuit Court and worked as a prosecutor and litigation lawyer.
How Judge Chang decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Chang declined to enforce a warranty disclaimer when the record did not establish the buyer’s awareness and the text itself was inconspicuous.
“Even if Plaintiff was aware of the disclaimer, the disclaimer itself is not conspicuous.”
He treated innocent-intervenor status as defeating fee liability under the civil-rights fee statute.
“finds that CFV is not liable for fees under § 1988(b) and declines to recommend an award of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs.”
Procedural preferences
In Robinson v. Plourde, Chang recommended reducing requested attorney fees after finding that block billing made the reasonableness of some time entries difficult to assess.
“The use of block billing here makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the Court to determine the reasonableness of the hours expended with respect to specific time entries.”
In Keown v. Tudor Insurance, he recommended remand after finding that avoiding needless decisions on state insurance law weighed against retaining federal jurisdiction.
“the factor of avoiding needless determination of state law issues weighs in favor of declining jurisdiction.”
Cautions
In Lee v. Corrections Corp. of America, he recommended transfer after finding that most parties and witnesses were in Mississippi or elsewhere on the mainland; the district court adopted the recommendation.
“it is clear that the majority of witnesses and parties reside in Mississippi or on the mainland.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees, filed April 14, 2010, and award Plaintiffs $20,929.57 in attorneys’ fees.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, this Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Bill of Costs, filed December 14, 2010, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court recommends that the district court award Defendant $26,439.85 in costs.”
“The Court accordingly RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Transfer and ORDER transfer of this action to the Northern District of Mississippi.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, filed December 21, 2012, and award Defendant $16,560.39 in attorneys’ fees and $14.10 in costs.”
“The Court denies the United States’ request for the imposition of sanctions against Defendants based on the findings presented by the Special Master in the Eleventh Report.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT Plaintiffs Motion for Remand, filed February 27, 2008.”
“In accordance vrith the aforementioned discussion, this Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Related Nontaxable Expenses, filed December 30, 2013, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court recommends that the district court award Plaintiff $30,936.11 in attorneys’ fees.”
“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court HEREBY FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, filed November 1, 2010, be DENIED.”
“The court therefore RECOMMENDS that the Petition be DENIED with prejudice.”
“Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES AS MOOT 1) Defendant’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment on the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur and Any Similar Theories and 2) Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Circumstantial Evidence Under Strict Products Liability (‘Quasi’ — Res Ipsa).”
“In accordance with the foregoing, this Court, acting as Special Master, FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Attorney’s Fees, filed November 9, 2007, be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO END STAY”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 468 days (N = 80).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 3.5 days (N = 10).
The 80 located assigned cases were all terminated and form a bounded historical cohort rather than a career-wide caseload measure.
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 |
| 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.
A historical record
Judge Chang no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.