Salvador Mendoza Jr.
How Judge Mendoza rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Mendoza left this court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Mendoza
Salvador Mendoza, Jr. was a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Mendoza received a commission on June 19, 2014. Judge Mendoza left the court on September 16, 2022 on appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
How Judge Mendoza decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
The court applied ordinary contract meaning and held that a statutory notice announcing future litigation was not itself a demand for relief.
“The notice does not request a settlement or direct Tree Top to take any affirmative action. It merely provides notice of ELF’s allegations and its intent to sue.”
A temporary restraining order followed where continued detention rested on an administrative immigration warrant and the plaintiff was likely to succeed on a Fourth Amendment claim.
“the Court concludes that Sanchez Ochoa is likely to succeed on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim and meets the standard for obtaining the requested relief.”
An environmental analysis was remanded because it did not adequately account for climate-change effects on hatchery operations and water use.
“the BiOp is arbitrary and capricious on one narrow basis — NMFS failed to adequately consider the effects of climate change in its analysis of the Hatchery’s operations and water use.”
Procedural preferences
The court treated discovery as broad but tied compelled production to relevance and the search for admissible evidence.
“wide access to relevant facts serves the integrity and fairness of the judicial process by promoting the search for truth.”
Cross-motions were decided separately when one party prevailed on the policy-interpretation question and the competing request failed.
“Tree Top’s, Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding When the Claim was First. Made, ECF No, 43, is GRANTED.”
Cautions
A criminal charge could not proceed when the regulation supporting it had not been validly adopted.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17 , is GRANTED .”
A moving party's factual record did not eliminate trial issues across all employment claims, resulting in only partial summary judgment.
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 67 , is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, ECF No. 37, is GRANTED IN PART (as to the production detailed above) and DENIED IN PART (award of fees and costs).”
“Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding IFCA Claim, ECF No. 49, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, ECF No. 29, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff Wild Fish Conservancy’s Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 92, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendants’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 97, 98, and 100, are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 22, is DENIED.”
“Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 23, is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Monsanto’s Counterclaims, ECF No. 83, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff Sanchez Ochoa’s Motion in Support of Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED;”
“Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 31, is DENIED.”
“LINA’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 37, is DENIED.”
“Tree Top’s, Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding When the Claim was First. Made, ECF No, 43, is GRANTED.”
“Starr’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Claim, ECF No, 41, is DENIED.”
“USAO's Motion for Pretrial Detention, ECF No. 41 , is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 67 , is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71 as amended by ECF No. 117 , is DENIED .”
“Defendant's Motion to Strike 72 Statement of Facts, ECF No. 86 , is DENIED .”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite and for Protective Order, ECF No. 34 , is GRANTED .”
“Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 37 , is DENIED .”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The authored decisions and accepted docket sample span civil rights, insurance, environmental, employment, criminal, commercial, Social Security, and prisoner matters. The small fixed sample does not support a quantified caseload claim.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Mendoza was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2022.
| 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 | 14 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 3 |
| Sep 2020 | 3 | 4 |
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.
A historical record
Judge Mendoza left this court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.