Benjamin H. Settle
How Judge Settle rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Settle
Benjamin Hale Settle is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Settle received a commission on July 2, 2007. Judge Settle assumed senior status on January 1, 2020.
Judge Settle's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Settle, 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
Filing
Include a proposed order with a stipulation and send its Word version to chambers.
“When filing stipulations, include a proposed order for the Judge to sign and send a Word version of the order to [email protected].”
Motions
File an agreed request using the “stipulated motion” event.
“Stipulated motions should be filed as a ‘stipulated motion’ rather than a ‘stipulation,’ ‘agreed motion,’ or ‘unopposed motion.’”
Discovery
For a time sensitive discovery issue, jointly contact the deputy and send a short joint description at least 24 hours before the conference.
“The parties should submit a short, joint document describing the nature of the dispute and the parties’ respective positions, at least 24 hours before the conference.”
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).
- Amended Procedures for the Filing, Service, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- Materials Related to Cooperation ↗
- Exhibit Retention Procedures ↗
- Availability and Redaction Policies for Electronically Filed Transcripts ↗
- Social Security Cases ↗
- Immigration Habeas Petitions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ↗
- Amended Provisions for Electronic Case Filing ↗
How Judge Settle decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Clift v. United States Internal Revenue Service, he granted the motion to dismiss a self-represented taxpayer’s complaint but allowed amendment of potentially curable claims.
“hereby grants the motion and grants leave to amend for the reasons stated herein.”
In Shilling, he recognized the deference ordinarily afforded to military judgments but found preliminary relief warranted where the government did not support its new policy with current evidence and the record reflected years of open transgender service.
“The government’s arguments are not persuasive, and it is not an especially close question on this record.”
Procedural preferences
In a premises-liability case, he declined a spoliation sanction where the plaintiff had already raised a factual issue under the self-service notice exception and had not shown the missing surveillance footage would cause material prejudice.
“Because the Court finds that Ms. Trujillo has successfully created a question of material fact on the self-service exception to notice, the Court concludes that a spoliation sanction is unwarranted and unnecessary at this point in the litigation.”
Cautions
In Bulldis v. Albertsons Companies Inc., Settle awarded discovery expenses after the responding party provided only partial answers and offered no sufficient reason for its delay.
“Swire’s justifications for delay are without merit and there is nothing in the record that makes an award of expenses unjust.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ... hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.”
“ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ... hereby grants the motion in part and denies it in part for the reasons stated herein.”
“ORDER DENYING PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“DENYING PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
“ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND ... hereby grants the motion and grants leave to amend for the reasons stated herein.”
“Defendant Westchester Fire Insurance Company's (‘Westchester’) motion to dismiss. Dkt. 12. ... hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.”
“hereby denies the motion in part, grants the motion in part, and reserves ruling and requests supplemental briefing in part for the reasons stated herein.”
“For the reasons set forth in its Opinion, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 23.”
“GRANTED. Penner should file his amended complaint within 10 days.”
“HomeLight’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 19, is DENIED.”
“HomeLight’s motion to certify this Court’s Order for interlocutory review and stay 13 pending appeal is DENIED.”
“DCYF’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 19, is 5 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“McIntire’s motion for a preliminary injunction, 6 Dkt. 14, is DENIED.”
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 | 2 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 5 | 5 |
| Sep 2024 | 6 | 7 |
| Mar 2024 | 2 | 6 |
| Sep 2023 | 4 | 8 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 10 |
| Sep 2022 | 5 | 8 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 18 |
| Mar 2021 | 3 | 16 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 9 |
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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Tacoma), not for Judge Settle: 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 | 2,877 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 684 | 3.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,159 | 6.7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 10 | 27.7 months |
| Closed during trial | 24 | 25.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,877 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,639 | 6.5 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,594 | 6.4 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,303 | 7.3 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,703 | 8.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,340 | 7.2 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,536 | 7.6 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 Settle with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Settle, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Settle's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace