Gloria M. Navarro
How Judge Navarro rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Navarro
Gloria Maria Navarro is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Navarro received a commission on May 6, 2010.
How Judge Navarro decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Patel's homeowner-insurance suit, Navarro dismissed the complaint for insufficient factual allegations supporting the insurance claims and denied alternative motions as moot.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 6), is GRANTED .”
In Saleh's challenge to the denial of an I-130 petition, Navarro granted the petitioner's summary-judgment motion and denied the government's motion.
“Grants Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28).”
A trademark-registration cancellation claim survives dismissal when the plaintiff plausibly alleges earlier actual use of the mark, even if the defense characterizes the claim as fraud-based.
“The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim is sufficiently pled as a prior rights claim, not a fraud claim.”
In one ERISA contribution dispute, common ownership and overlapping operations plausibly supported an alter ego claim at the pleading stage.
“Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an entitlement to relief on its alter ego theory.”
Procedural preferences
In an HOA foreclosure quiet-title suit, Navarro resolved competing summary-judgment motions together, granting one of the plaintiff's motions.
“Plaintiff's Second Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 110), is GRANTED”
In MJL 12 v. MJJ Productions, Navarro dismissed a logo copyright claim without prejudice after filtering unprotectable elements and finding the remaining arrangements were not virtually identical.
“The Court finds that these differences make the logos not ‘virtually identical,’ so Plaintiff has failed to allege the second element of its copyright claim.”
In Aevoe, she rejected a patent standing challenge because the recorded corrective assignment identified the plaintiff as the titleholder before it filed suit.
“Because the date of the Corrective Assignment predates the commencement of this action, there can be no question that Plaintiff Aevoe Corp., as the record titleholder at the time, had standing to initiate this litigation.”
Cautions
In Tarr v. Narconon Fresh Start, Navarro denied dismissal of the plaintiffs’ contract, implied-covenant, and intentional-infliction claims after finding that their amended complaint adequately alleged the promised services and challenged conduct.
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 20) is DENIED.”
A declaratory claim tied to future performances must allege a concrete and immediate controversy; demands directed only at out-of-state venues did not make Nevada performances ripe for adjudication.
“The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege a ‘substantial controversy’ as to their right of publicity to Nevada shows.”
In McCoy, the court granted summary judgment on a retaliation claim because the record did not connect the employee’s protected complaints to his termination.
“the record is devoid of any direct or circumstantial evidence that”
In Woodcrest, the quiet title claim survived a limitations challenge, while separate statutory and wrongful foreclosure claims were dismissed with prejudice as untimely.
“BANA’s second and third claims are untimely and dismissed with prejudice.”
In Perkins’s vehicle-loan credit-reporting dispute, Navarro granted the lender summary judgment on the FCRA claim because the plaintiff challenged the note’s legal validity without disputing the truth of the reported information.
“However, Plaintiff never disputed the truth of the information Navy Federal provided to Experian, just the legal validity of the underlying Promissory Note.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court Denies Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27)”
“Grants Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28).”
“For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.”
“Plaintiff's Second Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 110), is GRANTED”
“Plaintiff and SFR's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF Nos. 65, 68), are DENIED”
“SFR's Second Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 117), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 6), is GRANTED .”
“Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement or to Sever/Bifurcate and to Stay Claims for Bad Faith, (ECF No. 7), is DENIED as moot .”
“Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29), is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.”
“The Court GRANTS Defendant Stratosphere Gaming’s Motion to Dismiss because”
“The Court also GRANTS Defendant Spicer’s”
“the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,”
“No. 23), is DENIED as MOOT.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) is DENIED in its entirety.”
“Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, (ECF No. 10), is GRANTED .”
“Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF No. 11), and Motion to Stay During Pendency of Arbitration, (ECF No. 12), are DENIED as moot .”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 22), is DENIED”
“Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Response to Surreply, (ECF No. 23), is GRANTED”
“the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing (ECF No. 344) is DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled recent docket is dominated by 2026 alien-detainee petitions under 28 U.S.C. 2241, alongside consumer, civil-rights, commercial, and personal-injury matters. Those matters were pending when sampled and do not support case-duration estimates. The motion analysis also includes older terminated litigated cases, including Ball and McCoy.
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 | 1 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 2 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 22 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 22 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 23 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 21 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 16 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 20 |
| Sep 2023 | 5 | 28 |
| Mar 2023 | 17 | 26 |
| Sep 2022 | 44 | 20 |
| Mar 2022 | 14 | 18 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 18 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 10 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 8 |
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 United States District Court for the District of Nevada, not for Judge Navarro: 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 | 2,100 | 8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 290 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,769 | 8.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 28 | 8 months |
| Closed during trial | 13 | 62 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,100 | 8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,177 | 8.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,000 | 8.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,030 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,291 | 8.6 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,392 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,679 | 11.5 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 Navarro with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Navarro, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Navarro's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace