John V. Acosta

United States District Court for the District of Oregon magistrate 18 signed orders read

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Pearson v. Ethicon, Inc.
3:20-cv-01905-AC · 2021-09-30
Motion to exclude (defendant) Granted in part

“I DENY IN PART Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Donald R. Ostergard, M.D. [ECF 32].”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted in part

“Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta on all grounds except for his decision to deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs gross negligence claim. ... I GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 30].”

Giulio v. BV CenterCal, LLC
3:09-cv-00482-AC · 2011-08-31
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations (doc #80 and #81). Accordingly, Defendants' motions for summary judgment (doc #20, #24, and #31) are GRANTED.”

Coos Bay RV Investments, LLC v. Weelhaus, Inc.
3:21-cv-00448-AC · 2021-11-04
Default judgment (plaintiff) Granted

“the Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 24. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF 16. ... awarding Plaintiff damages in the amount of $1,538,444.58 for out-of-pocket expenses and lost profits, plus pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.”

Cervantes v. Sutton
2:20-cv-00105-AC · 2022-03-22
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation (ECF 47), as supplemented herein after considering Plaintiff's new argument and evidence. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF 34.”

Millbrooke v. City of Canby
3:12-cv-00168-AC · 2014-01-24
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Granted in part

“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART as to Defendants' qualified immunity affirmative defense and DENIED on all other grounds, Dkt. 29”

Partial summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“(2) Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Monell violation and negligence claims, Dkt. 19.”

Barber v. Vance
3:16-cv-02105-AC · 2017-09-26
Declaratory judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“Plaintiff's motion for a declaratory judgment on his first claim for relief (ECF 40) is DENIED.”

Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“The State Defendants motion to dismiss (ECF 56) is GRANTED IN PART. It is granted with respect to Plaintiff's first claim for relief, which is dismissed without prejudice.”

Motions to strike (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Vance's special motion to strike under Oregon Revised Statutes § 31.150 (ECF 85) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Vance are dismissed without prejudice.”

Forbidden Fruit Ciderhouse, LLC dba 2 Towns Ciderhouse v. Ohio Security Insurance Co.
3:20-cv-00844-AC · 2022-02-23
Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“This Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 41, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 37”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“This Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 41, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF 37, and DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion for Relief, ECF 51, and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.”

Motion for relief (defendant) Moot / procedural

“DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion for Relief, ECF 51”

Anand v. Inbasagaran
3:18-cv-02021-AC · 2020-07-13
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“I GRANT the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and DENY the Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Denied

“I GRANT Mr. Inbasagaran's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [36] and DENY his Motion for Summary Judgment [37].”

Dauven v. U.S. Bancorp
3:13-cv-00844-AC · 2014-06-30
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“GRANTS Bank Defendants' Motion (#73) to Dismiss; DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiffs' Claims One, Two, Three, and Thirteen against Bank Defendants; and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs' Claim Nine against Bank Defendants.”

Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“GRANTS State Farm's Motion (#120) for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiffs' Claims One and Three against Defendant State Farm.”

Mertz v. American Family Insurer
3:10-cv-00260-AC · 2013-12-06
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#88) and, accordingly, GRANTS Defendant's Motion (#62) for Summary Judgment based on Mertz's failure to file proof of loss for the property at issue and DENIES as moot Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in all other respects.”

Summary judgment (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court also DISMISSES Plaintiff's Motion (#66) for Summary Judgment and Motion (#67) to Dismiss Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Byers v. Amsberry
2:17-cv-00734-AC · 2018-06-18
Habeas petition (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation, ECF 25. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 1) is DENIED. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).”

Topness v. Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare
3:16-cv-02026-AC · 2018-02-22
Attorney fees (plaintiff) Granted in part

“The Court ADOPTS IN PART AND MODIFIES IN PART Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings & Recommendation [42], and therefore, Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees [26] and Plaintiff's cost bill [39] are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff is awarded $41,796 in attorney's fees and $777.44 in costs.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The Portland sample combines civil cases in which the parties consented to Acosta's jurisdiction with self-represented and duty-magistrate matters that often ended quickly. Several completed cases lasted fewer than 60 days, while litigated consent matters lasted more than a year. Reported durations measure the life of each case, not the time taken to decide a motion.

Put Judge Acosta's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Acosta actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Acosta's own signed orders and cites them.