Yvonne Y. Ho
How Judge Ho rules, drawn from 33 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ho
Yvonne Y. Ho has served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas since March 21, 2022. She earned music degrees from Rice University and the University of Southern California, then a J.D. from the University of Houston Law Center in 2006. Before joining the bench, she clerked for federal judges and practiced civil appellate law at Bracewell LLP.
Judge Ho's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ho, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
File documents through CM/ECF unless an unrepresented party lacks access.
“All documents must be filed through the District Court’s Case management/Electronic Case Filing (‘CM/ECF’) System. See Southern District Local Rule 5.1 and the District’s Administrative Procedures for CM/ECF (available at www.txs.uscourts.gov). Parties who do not have counsel and are not granted access to CM/ECF may file their documents in person, at the Clerk’s Office.”
Conferences
Continuances are discretionary, rarely granted for discovery disputes, and unavailable because a witness cannot attend trial.
“Motions for continuance will be granted only at the Court’s discretion. b. The Court’s trial settings are usually firm. Continuances will rarely be granted because of discovery disputes. 2 c. Vacation requests will be respected if they are made well in advance of a trial setting or hearing date. d. Trial will not be continued because a witness is unavailable. Counsel must anticipate such possibilities.”
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 8, 2026).
How Judge Ho decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Hubert's employment suit, Ho recommended granting the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice despite the defendant's objection, finding no legally cognizable prejudice; the district judge adopted her recommendation.
“courts have generally followed the traditional principle that dismissal without prejudice should be allowed 'unless the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.' ... It also lists the reasons why Defendant will not be prejudiced in a legally cognizable manner.”
Procedural preferences
In St. Amand v. EKRE of TX, Ho recommended denying remand and granting dismissal in the same report; the district judge adopted both recommendations and dismissed the case with prejudice.
“Magistrate Judge Ho's Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 12) that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion to remand and grant the Defendant's motion to dismiss.”
Cautions
In Bader v. Rocket Mortgage, Ho recommended dismissal with prejudice because the complaint failed to state claims for breach of contract, gross negligence, or unjust enrichment; the district judge adopted the recommendation.
“recommending that this lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff has not stated a claim for breach of contract, gross negligence, or unjust enrichment.”
In Woodson, Ho recommended denying emergency relief because the plaintiff waited until just before the foreclosure sale and did not show a likelihood of success.
“She issued a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the motion be denied because Plaintiff (i) manufactured any ‘emergency’ by waiting until just before the challenged foreclosure sale to seek relief, and (ii) failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Judge Ho filed a Memorandum and Recommendation on April 29, 2025, recommending that this lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff has not stated a claim for breach of contract, gross negligence, or unjust enrichment. ... (2) This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“She recommends that Plaintiff's notice to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice be granted pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). ... The notice by Plaintiff Demarcus Gene Hubert for voluntary dismissal without prejudice is accepted as a motion under Rule 41(a)(2) and is on that basis GRANTED. ... The case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 12) is ADOPTED; Plaintiff[']s Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED;”
“and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) GRANTED; It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff[']s case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“The motion by the United States of America to intervene and to dismiss is GRANTED.”
“it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14), which is more properly construed as a motion for summary judgment, be GRANTED, and that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment (Dkt. 4) be GRANTED, and this appeal be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
“It is further RECOMMENDED Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 31) be DENIED AS MOOT and her amended motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 42) be DENIED without prejudice to refiling.”
“On December 11, 2025, Plaintiff Heloisa Jager filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, Dkt. 53, which Defendant U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (‘FAA’) opposed, Dkt. 55. For the reasons below, the motion is denied.”
“it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Director, U.S. Citizenship Immigration Services, et al.'s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) be GRANTED. It is further recommended that Plaintiff Marlen Sayegh A.'s sole claim under the Administrative Procedure Act be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the motion to remand filed by Plaintiffs M Felder Trucking LLC and Mark Felder (Dkt. 7) be GRANTED, and that this case be REMANDED to state court.”
“Gaimin's motion to dismiss, embedded in its notice of removal (Dkt. 1), should be DENIED AS MOOT.”
“For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Jacqueline R. Manuel's motion to reopen the case (Dkt. 40) be DENIED, and her application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 41) be DENIED AS MOOT.”
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 | 0 |
| 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 | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
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 Southern District of Texas, not for Judge Ho: 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 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 2,442 | 6 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,371 | 7.4 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 871 | 11.4 months |
| Closed during trial | 58 | 31.6 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 5,742 | 7.6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 5,086 | 7.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 4,762 | 7.9 months |
| Sep 2022 | 4,595 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2021 | 4,745 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 5,009 | 8.1 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,233 | 7.5 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 Ho with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ho, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ho's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace