James L. Robart
How Judge Robart rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Robart
James L. Robart is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Robart received a commission on June 21, 2004. Judge Robart assumed senior status on June 28, 2016.
Judge Robart's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Robart, 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
Submit courtesy copies for documents exceeding 100 pages.
“parties should submit courtesy copies to the Clerk of Court of any documents that exceed 100 pages in length.”
Discovery
Have all parties join a call to chambers about a discovery dispute.
“All parties to the discovery dispute must participate in making the call to chambers.”
Trial
A trial continuance request requires exceptional circumstances.
“Judge Robart will not consider motions or stipulations to continue the trial date absent exceptional circumstances.”
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 Robart decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In discrimination pleading, a 'similarly situated comparator' must be alleged with concrete specificity; a broad undifferentiated category will not support an inference of intent.
“the broad, undifferentiated category 'other paying customers' lacks sufficient specificity and is not a comparator that is similarly situated to the Tribe or the Casino in all material respects.”
In Banda v. McAleenan, he found the petitioner’s continued mandatory detention unreasonable and ordered an individualized bond hearing.
“The court thus concludes that petitioner's continued mandatory detention under § 1225(b) has become unreasonable and that due process requires the Government to provide him with a bond hearing.”
Procedural preferences
In Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. City of Snoqualmie, he found oral argument unnecessary for that motion after no party requested it.
“No party has requested oral argument, and the court deems it unnecessary to the disposition of this motion. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4).”
At the pleading stage in a patent case, he declined to consider factual assertions first made in opposition papers because they were absent from the amended complaint.
“However, the court may not consider this material because it was neither included nor referred to in CyWee's amended complaint.”
Cautions
In a Washington product-liability case, a plaintiff's own admitted disregard of a warning he understood can be an unforeseeable superseding cause that defeats legal causation as a matter of law: even where cause-in-fact is genuinely disputed.
“Because Mr. Beard's act in defying Mighty Lift's warning decal was not reasonably foreseeable, his act represents a superseding cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation to Mighty Lift.”
In a tax penalty pleading, Robart held that reliance on advisers alone did not establish reasonable cause for a dishonored check penalty. He dismissed the self-represented complaint with leave to amend.
“Thus, dismissal of Mr. Zalke’s complaint for failure to state a claim is warranted.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the court GRANTS Mighty Lift's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 31).”
“Mighty Lift's motion to compel discovery (Dkt. # 24) is now moot, and accordingly, the court DENIES it.”
“In ruling on Mighty Lift's motion for summary judgment, the court did not rely upon the challenged portion of Mighty Lift's expert witness's testimony. Accordingly, Mr. Beard's motion is also moot, and the court DENIES it.”
“the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' motion (Dkt. # 22). The court DISMISSES the Tribe's Section 1981 claim but GRANTS the Tribe leave to amend its complaint concerning that claim within 20 days of the date of this order. The Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants' request that the court decline supplemental jurisdiction over and dismiss the Tribe's state law claims.”
“the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Eddie Bauer's motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 40). Veridian may file an amended complaint that is consistent with court's rulings herein.”
“the court GRANTS MITAC America's motion, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part AeroTEC Defendants' motion, and GRANTS Bombardier leave to file an amended complaint within 15 days of the date of this order.”
“the court GRANTS Massachusetts Bay's motion and DENIES Defendants' motion”
“The court GRANTS Respondents' motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 4);”
“The court DENIES Petitioner's habeas petition (Dkt. # 1);”
“The court DENIES Petitioner's motion to stay, (Dkt. # 1-13);”
“The court DENIES Respondents' motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 6);”
“The court GRANTS Petitioner's habeas corpus petition (Dkt. # 1);”
“the court GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 14) and DISMISSES Mr. Zalke’s complaint with leave to amend.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 88).”
“Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ quiet title claim is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED.”
“the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for judgment on partial findings regarding Mr. Lysyy’s statutory standing to pursue an 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) claim for violation of the bankruptcy stay (Dkt. # 174).”
“the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Dkt. 10 # 11).”
“the court DENIES AutoNation’s 14 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 21).”
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 | 2 | 2 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 5 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 6 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 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.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle), not for Judge Robart: 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 Robart with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Robart, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Robart's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace