Michael W. Mosman
How Judge Mosman rules, drawn from 47 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Mosman
Michael W. Mosman is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Mosman received a commission on September 26, 2003. Judge Mosman assumed senior status on December 27, 2021.
Judge Mosman's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Mosman, 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 Mosman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Jespersen v. Metro West Ambulance, Mosman denied the employer’s summary-judgment motion after finding factual disputes about its shifting explanations for firing the employee and its school-attendance requirement.
“Metro West's shifting explanations and the dispute concerning whether school attendance was an employment requirement create a sufficient factual dispute to defeat summary judgment on this claim.”
Procedural preferences
In a habeas case with no objections to Judge Jelderks’s recommendation, Mosman reviewed and adopted the recommendation to dismiss the petition.
“On February 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [21], recommending Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] should be DISMISSED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed. ... Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [21] as my own opinion.”
In Nelson v. Unified Grocers, Mosman adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation in part. After oral argument and supplemental briefing on prejudice under the leave laws, he also granted summary judgment on the interference and retaliation claims the magistrate had recommended preserving.
“Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's analysis and his recommendation as to all claims except for the interference and retaliation claims. I therefore ADOPT IN PART the F&R [44]. However, I GRANT defendant summary judgment on all claims, including the interference and retaliation claims, for the reasons explained above and at oral argument.”
Cautions
In Watts v. Novak, Mosman denied a Rule 59(e) motion after finding that the plaintiff offered no new evidence, change in law, or authority undermining the earlier summary-judgment ruling and instead repeated arguments already decided.
“For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [ECF 76] is DENIED.”
In a Rule 11 dispute, Mosman denied a sanctions motion because the challenged summary-judgment motion was not frivolous and described the sanctions request itself as borderline frivolous.
“Here, defendant's motion for summary judgment is not frivolous, legally unreasonable, or without factual support. ... Ironically, the motion that is borderline frivolous is plaintiff's motion for sanctions. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is therefore denied.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Ditech's Motion for Summary Judgment [20] is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint [28] is DENIED.”
“Metro West's motion for summary judgment (#33) is DENIED.”
“The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [15] is DENIED.”
“I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF 185] as my own opinion, and I GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF 158]. I dismiss Plaintiffs' Article I, Section 20 claim with prejudice and Plaintiffs' claim for class damages without prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss their claims in this action pursuant to pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) [ECF No. 34] is hereby GRANTED, and all claims in Plaintiff's August 15, 2016 Complaint [ECF No.1], and any and all causes of action contained therein, are dismissed without prejudice.”
“Upon review, I agree with Judge You's recommendations, I ADOPT her F. & R. [ECF 34] as my own opinion, and I GRANT the government's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 25].”
“Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's analysis and his recommendation as to all claims except for the interference and retaliation claims. I therefore ADOPT IN PART the F&R [44]. However, I GRANT defendant summary judgment on all claims, including the interference and retaliation claims, for the reasons explained above and at oral argument.”
“recommending that I GRANT defendants' Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (#44), ... Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R”
“GRANT IN PART, DENY IN PART, and DENY AS MOOT IN PART defendants' Motion to Strike (#60)”
“DENY AS MOOT defendants' Motion to Compel”
“Based on the foregoing, I GRANT Multnomah County's Motion for Summary Judgment (#92).”
“Lastly, I deny defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to renew. It is premature to discuss the applicability of either the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the Eleventh Amendment without first ascertaining the scope and nature of plaintiff's claims.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#190), Copyright Infringement, is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#233), Trade Secret Misappropriation, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss (#257) is GRANTED.”
“On February 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Jelderks issued his Findings and Recommendation (F&R) [21], recommending Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] should be DISMISSED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed. ... Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [21] as my own opinion.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 2018-2020 case sample is weighted toward federal post-conviction petitions and criminal matters, with additional employment civil-rights, foreclosure, personal-injury, and employee-benefit trust cases. 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 | 4 |
| 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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 4 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 1 | 4 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2023 | 2 | 19 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 4 | 5 |
| Mar 2022 | 4 | 7 |
| Sep 2021 | 5 | 11 |
| Mar 2021 | 12 | 8 |
| Sep 2020 | 8 | 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 Oregon, not for Judge Mosman: 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 Mosman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Mosman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Mosman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace