Ann L. Aiken
How Judge Aiken rules, drawn from 37 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Aiken
Ann L. Aiken is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Aiken received a commission on February 4, 1998. Judge Aiken assumed senior status on December 29, 2023.
Judge Aiken's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Aiken, 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.
Key rules
Trial
Turn off mobile devices before entering the courtroom.
“Mobile devices must be turned off before entering the courtroom.”
Trial
Give advance notice if teleconferencing or courtroom video displays will be needed.
“Please provide advance notice when you require teleconferencing, intend to utilize the courtroom's video displays, or have other presentation technology questions.”
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 Aiken decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a hospital employee’s religious-accommodation case, she granted the employer summary judgment after finding that masking and testing for hundreds of on-site unvaccinated workers would impose undue hardship under the documented conditions.
“employees with N95 respirators and ‘regular testing’ without undue hardship on the conduct of its healthcare business.”
Procedural preferences
In one reconsideration ruling, she rejected arguments that the movant could have raised in its earlier brief rather than allowing a second round of advocacy.
“Plaintiff reasonably could have presented these arguments earlier in the litigation and he is barred from doing so in the present motion.”
Cautions
In one Rule 11 case she granted a sanctions motion but selected an admonishment rather than the requested attorney fees, finding it sufficient to deter the conduct.
“The Court concludes that the appropriate sanction in this matter is an admonishment.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 31, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court declines to abstain from consideration of this case. ... Defendants' motion is denied as to Plaintiffs' claims under the CWA, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act as discussed above.”
“Plaintiffs have not met their burden to prove that, as a matter of law, they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief for their facial and as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the Sound Ordinance or ORS 166.025(1)(b). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 65, is DENIED.”
“The F&R, ECF No. 22, is therefore ADOPTED and the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in the F&R. Plaintiff's Fourth and Fifth Claims for relief are dismissed without prejudice and the prayer for prejudgment interest is construed to apply to the $150,000 bond amount only.”
“For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 59, is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED without further leave to amend.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without leave to amend.”
“defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant LoanCare, LLC are DISMISSED without prejudice.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 45 is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the complaint is denied.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 49, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“the Receiver’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 11, is DENIED.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Application to Proceed IFP, ECF No. 2 and GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 8.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, ECF No. 3, is DENIED as MOOT.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 76, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED”
“Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Class and Collective Action Allegations of the Complaint is GRANTED. ECF No. 27.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 408 days (N = 4).
- The late-2021 case sample includes prisoner civil-rights and habeas matters, Social Security appeals, wage-and-hour collective actions, personal-injury product liability, disability claims, and criminal cases.
- Two completed cases reviewed for timing ended by settlement or stipulated judgment without a contested dispositive ruling.
- Reported durations measure the life of each case, not the time taken to decide a motion.
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 | 12 |
| 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 | 20 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 12 | 20 |
| Sep 2025 | 5 | 18 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 25 |
| Sep 2024 | 13 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 17 | 12 |
| Sep 2023 | 15 | 10 |
| Mar 2023 | 37 | 55 |
| Sep 2022 | 50 | 42 |
| Mar 2022 | 44 | 32 |
| Sep 2021 | 33 | 27 |
| Mar 2021 | 44 | 25 |
| Sep 2020 | 27 | 19 |
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 Oregon, not for Judge Aiken: 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 | 1,647 | 9.8 months |
| Closed with no court action | 300 | 5.2 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,316 | 10.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 9 | not reported |
| Closed during trial | 22 | 33.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,647 | 9.8 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,633 | 10.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,472 | 11.6 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,620 | 13.7 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,501 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,536 | 11.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 1,596 | 11.6 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 Aiken with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Aiken, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Aiken's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace