Katherine Polk Failla
How Judge Failla decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
She is exacting about whether a federal cause of action survives where a parallel state-law theory is preempted: in antitrust she will let a well-pleaded federal Sherman Act conspiracy claim proceed past the pleadings while trimming preempted state antitrust/consumer-protection claims. A plaintiff should anchor the case in the federal claim and not rely on the state-law overlay.
“Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for violations of state antitrust and consumer protections laws is granted, while their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim under federal antitrust law is denied.”
Procedural preferences
She is willing to convert part of a Rule 12 motion to summary judgment where the parties rely on materials outside the pleadings, but she protects the non-movant from prejudice -- granting leave for additional discovery (a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition) and a surreply before deciding the converted portion. A litigant facing such a conversion should use the discovery window, not object to the conversion itself.
“To ensure that Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by this conversion, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to depose an additional witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and to file a surreply in opposition to Defendant's motion.”
Cautions
At the pleading stage she applies the conventional Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard and will sustain even a single-incident hostile-work-environment / discrimination claim where the pleaded conduct is sufficiently severe -- denying a defendant's partial motion to dismiss. A defendant should not assume that one episode is categorically insufficient.
“If, however, a single incident was "extraordinarily severe," it can suffice to state a claim.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 3 |
Granted in part: 2Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Summary judgment N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for judgment as a matter of law N = 2 |
Granted: 1Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Pending before the Court is a motion by Defendants Jaffe & Asher LLP ("Jaffe & Asher") and Jeffrey Tseng (collectively, "Defendants") to dismiss the third, fourth, and fifth claims for relief alleged in the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, this motion is denied.”
“For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court finds that the disputed provisions are valid and enforceable, and awards summary judgment in Defendants' favor.”
“The parties have now cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Court finds that the disputed provisions are valid and enforceable, and awards summary judgment in Defendants' favor.”
“the Court denies Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, and grants Plaintiffs motion for judgment as a matter of law as to his assault and battery claims and a new trial for damages.”
“grants Plaintiffs motion for judgment as a matter of law as to his assault and battery claims and a new trial for damages.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment in regards to Plaintiffs claim for improper imposition of fees under TILA and for breach of contract, and is granted on those claims. Defendant's motion is denied in regards to Plaintiffs APR disclosure claim.”
“For the reasons stated in this Opinion, Defendants' motion is granted in part; Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for violations of state antitrust and consumer protections laws is granted, while their motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim under federal antitrust law is denied.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sample from search_dockets(assigned_judge='Katherine Polk Failla'). The visible docket is current and 2026-heavy: ADA Title III public-accommodation access suits, a wave of alien-detainee habeas petitions (463), commercial contract, an FLSA/labor matter, a motor-vehicle case, an ex parte 28 U.S.C. 1782 discovery application, and a Section 2255-style matter (Cedeno v. United States). Reflects current assignments, not a tenure-wide caseload; the two terminated dockets are days-long procedural terminations.