Leslie Emi Kobayashi
How Judge Kobayashi rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Kobayashi
Leslie Emi Kobayashi is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Kobayashi received a commission on December 22, 2010. Judge Kobayashi assumed senior status on October 9, 2024.
Judge Kobayashi's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Kobayashi, 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.
- Civil Jury Instructions ↗
- Criminal Jury Instructions ↗
- Pre-Trial Procedures ↗
- Trial Procedures ↗
- Order Regarding Electronic Devices ↗
- Request for Video Participation ↗
- AI Guidelines ↗
Key rules
Filing
Disclose use of generative AI and name the specific tool in any filed document prepared with it.
“must disclose in the document that AI was used and the specific AI tool that was used.”
Filing
Certify that AI-drafted material, citations, and authorities in the filing were checked for accuracy.
“must further certify in the document that the person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted by generative AI, including all citations and legal authority.”
Conferences
Prepare for Judge Kobayashi’s pretrial conference two weeks before trial.
“Judge Kobayashi will hold a pretrial conference two weeks before the scheduled trial date.”
Trial
Meet and confer to agree on a common set of trial exhibits.
“Parties are required to meet and confer to agree upon a common set of exhibits.”
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 Kobayashi decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In an early round of Second Amendment litigation over Hawaii's post-Bruen firearms-carry law, the judge found the state's public-safety justification for one restriction undercut by the state's own evidence that very few concealed-carry permits had historically been issued, reasoning that a rule burdening a small, largely law-abiding subset of permit holders was hard to justify on public-safety grounds at the preliminary stage.
“the challenged provisions only impact a substantially small subset of gun owners and, thus, the State's public safety argument is not persuasive... the vast majority of conceal carry permit holders are law-abiding.”
In a Clean Water Act citizen suit over Navy fuel-storage leaks, the judge treated dueling expert reports on the likelihood of future contamination as creating a triable factual dispute rather than resolving the credibility contest herself, declining a defendant's summary-judgment bid on that basis.
“in ruling on Defendants' Motion, this Court cannot determine issues of credibility or relative weight of evidence... this Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the issue of whether prior intermittent discharges of fuel products at the Facility are reasonably likely to recur.”
In Whaley v. United States, Kobayashi dismissed failure-to-warn allegations in two counts as duplicative because they rested on the same facts as a separate premises-liability count.
“All three failure to warn claims are based on the same set of facts, and the claims can only proceed under a premises liability theory... the Court dismisses the failure to warn portions of Counts I and II as duplicative of the failure to warn portion of Count V.”
Procedural preferences
In Firsov v. City and County of Honolulu, she dismissed claims against a city department and officials in their official capacities because the plaintiff could sue the city directly on those theories.
“DCS is not a separate legal entity from the City... As to the claims against Mayor Blangiardi and Hashiro... 'There is no longer a need to bring official-capacity actions against local government officials, for under Monell... local government units can be sued directly for damages and injunctive or declaratory relief.' Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted insofar as Plaintiff's claims against DCS, Mayor Blangiardi, and Hashiro are dismissed.”
In Hermanns-Raymond, Kobayashi denied a Rule 41(b) dismissal after considering the case's circumstances and cautioned the plaintiff to comply with court orders and rules.
“Having considered all of the Dreith factors, this Court concludes that a Rule 41(b) dismissal is not warranted under the current circumstances of this case.”
Cautions
In Oliver v. State of Hawaii, Kobayashi granted reconsideration and vacated an earlier dismissal after the plaintiff clarified which criminal case he meant. On renewed screening, she dismissed the complaint with prejudice on immunity grounds.
“Based on these clarifications and the Court's mistake regarding the criminal proceeding that formed the basis for its decision, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to VACATE the December 5, 2018 Dismissal Order and judgment and reopen this case.”
In Hall v. City and County of Honolulu, she dismissed Claim 7 against individual defendants because it repeated a theory of liability already pleaded in two other claims, rather than stating separate relief.
“Claim 7 merely pleads the theory of liability that supports Claims 4 and 5. As the three claims are currently pled, Claim 7 does not plead a claim for relief which is separate and distinct from Claims 4 and 5. The Maioho-Pohina Motion is therefore granted, insofar as Claim 7 is dismissed.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed June 23, 2023, is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The TRO Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the following provisions are enjoined: -the portions of Section 134-A(a)(1) that prohibit carrying firearms in parking areas owned, leased, or used by the State or a county which share the parking area with non-governmental entities...; -the entirety of Sections 134-A(a)(4) and (a)(12); -the portions of Section 134-A(a)(9) prohibiting the carrying of firearms in beaches, parks, and their adjacent parking areas; and -the portion of Section 134-E that prohibits carrying firearms on private properties held open to the public. The TRO Motion is DENIED in all other respects.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 19, 2025, is HEREBY DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion is hereby granted insofar as the portions of Counts I and II alleging failure to properly test water samples for petroleum are dismissed with prejudice, and the portion of Count II alleging failure to properly remediate affected homes, and the portions of Counts I and II alleging failure to test for petroleum are dismissed. The Motion is denied insofar as the portion of Count II alleging failure to properly remediate affected homes, and the portions of Counts I and II alleging failure to test for petroleum are dismissed without prejudice.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the State's Motion to Remand, filed November 29, 2023, is HEREBY DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion is GRANTED insofar as the State's First Amended Complaint, filed November 6, 2023 in state court and replaced by the version filed in this district court on August 19, 2024, is DISMISSED. The Motion is DENIED insofar as the dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The State is GRANTED leave to file a second amended complaint.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint, filed October 30, 2023, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED insofar as: the claims against DCS, Mayor Blangiardi, and Hashiro are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and the claims alleging violations of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Plaintiff's claims alleging discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Hawai`i Constitution are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Remand is denied.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is denied.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the City’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Filed October 28, 2021 and Maioho-Pohina’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Filed October 28, 2021, both filed November 12, 2021, are HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The City Motion is GRANTED, insofar as all of Hall’s claims against the City are DISMISSED. The City Motion is DENIED, insofar as the dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“The Maioho-Pohina Motion is GRANTED, insofar as Hall's claims against Maioho-Pohina in Claim 4 and Claim 7 are DISMISSED. The Maioho-Pohina Motion is DENIED as to Hall's claim against Maioho-Pohina in Claim 5, and the motion is DENIED, insofar as the dismissal of Hall's claims against Maioho-Pohina in Claim 4 and Claim 7 is WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Lewis's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Filed July 5, 2024 (Dkt. 1), filed April 9, 2025, is HEREBY DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed June 19, 2019, is HEREBY DENIED.”
“the S&G Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts Three, Six, and Seven, of the Second Amended Counterclaim, and Counts One Through Four of the First Amended Third Party Complaint, filed May 28, 2021, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The S&G Parties' Motion is: GRANTED insofar as summary judgment is granted in favor of Bade-Castro as to Third-Party Count I; DENIED AS MOOT as to Counterclaim Count VII and Third-Party Count IV; and DENIED as to Counterclaim Count III, Counterclaim Count VI, Third-Party Count II, and Third-Party Count III.”
“Oliver's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Dismissal Order and judgment are VACATED.”
A mandatory pre-answer screening of a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915(e) and 1915A(a), not a ruling on a party motion. The court held: 'Plaintiff's claims for damages against all Defendants named in their official capacities are DISMISSED... The Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)(1) for Plaintiff's failure to state a colorable claim for relief. Plaintiff's claims against official capacity Defendants and for prospective injunctive relief are dismissed with prejudice. All other claims are dismissed with leave granted to amend.' The complaint alleged a retaliatory prison transfer after the plaintiff filed a grievance; the court found the access-to-courts, conspiracy, and retaliation theories insufficiently pled but allowed amendment on all but the barred official-capacity and mootness grounds.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled docket includes civil-rights, habeas, Social Security, prisoner, employment, trade-secret, insurance, contract, environmental, and public-law matters arising across Hawaii.
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 5 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 7 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 2 |
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 Kobayashi: 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 Kobayashi with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Kobayashi, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Kobayashi's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace