Rom A. Trader
How Judge Trader decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On fee petitions, will not simply defer to an unopposed request: he independently checks the billing record line by line, and redacted or block-billed entries draw a percentage deduction even when the other side does not object.
“The Court is unable to determine whether the hours expended are reasonable if it does not know what task was performed. The Court has carefully reviewed each invoice submitted and finds that a 5% across-the-board reduction is reasonable to account for the missing information due to the redactions.”
Applies Hawaii's HRS 607-14 fee-shifting statute strictly: even a well-documented, reasonable fee request will be capped at the statutory 25%-of-judgment ceiling, and non-taxable costs or excise tax on top of that ceiling will be denied.
“The Court finds that the Defendant's request for non-taxable costs in addition to attorneys' fees exceed the statutory limit and must therefore be denied.”
A recusal motion grounded only in disagreement with prior rulings -- with no extrajudicial source of bias identified -- is reliably denied, for the litigant and for the presiding district judge alike.
“None of the rulings and orders that Plaintiff relies upon show that either this Court or the magistrate judge improperly relied upon an extrajudicial source. ... The reasons for Plaintiff's disagreement with those rulings are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”
Procedural preferences
Gives pro se litigants real room to cure a pleading defect before shutting the door: a Social Security claimant's one-line 'disability retirement' complaint and a Title VII claimant who sued before exhausting EEOC remedies both got dismissed with leave to amend, while a complaint the Court found factually frivolous did not.
“The Court thus recommends that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and that Plaintiff be permitted leave to file an amended complaint.”
Before recommending a terminating sanction, documents an extended record of prior warnings and lesser measures tried first -- dismissal with prejudice follows only after repeated, willful noncompliance despite that history.
“As to the first subfactor, the Court has previously tried to take less drastic action in the form of the countless previous warnings. ... Yet despite these previous admonitions, Plaintiff willfully and in bad faith continued to disobey court orders.”
Cautions
A default judgment motion filed before the clerk actually enters default will be recommended for denial as premature, and a pro se litigant cannot obtain default judgment on behalf of a business entity he is not authorized to represent.
“The Motion for Default Judgment is thus premature as an entry of default must precede a motion for default judgment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that out of the total amount of attorneys' fees and general excise tax requested, $9,611.98 should be deducted due to a 5% across-the-board reduction for redactions to the billing statements.”
“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint.”
“the Court finds Plaintiff's arguments for remand unpersuasive and FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's request to remand be DENIED.”
“the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district court dismiss the instant case against Defendant Dayton with prejudice.”
“Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 54.2(h), the Court DENIES the Second Fee Motion WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Plaintiffs' ... motions seeking the recusal of this Court, the magistrate judge, and the district court staff, are HEREBY DENIED in their entirety.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the IFP Application be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the district court DENY the Application, and DISMISS the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.”
“After careful review of the Application and relevant law, the Court recommends that the Application be DENIED.”
“The Court thus RECOMMENDS that the district court DENY the Application, and DISMISS the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.”
“the Court FINDS that the fees in the amount of $27,112.50 is reasonable and RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT the Fee Motion.”
“the Court FINDS that an amendment of the Default Judgment to include the attorneys' fees awarded to Plaintiff is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), and RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Amend be GRANTED.”
“the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Defendants ... be GRANTED $1,357.00 in attorney's fees, $45.80 in costs, and $66.10 in GET ... The Court RECOMMENDS that the remaining $416.75 in attorney's fees, costs, and GET be DENIED.”
“The Court RECOMMENDS that the Corrected Motion for Default Judgment be DENIED.”
“the Court also FINDS that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and RECOMMENDS that the Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.”
“the Court FINDS that the Application should be DENIED as moot.”
“The Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the district court DISMISS the Complaint with leave to amend and DENY as MOOT the Application WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed consent civil docket is notably settlement-heavy: among eleven terminated cases from 2021 through 2024, only Harding produced a classified ruling before resolution; the others ended through stipulated dismissal or judgment without a retained motion ruling. At this sample size, the evidence supports describing the consent docket as mostly resolved by settlement.
Put Judge Trader's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Trader actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Trader's own signed orders and cites them.