John H. Chun
How Judge Chun rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Chun
John Hyungseung Chun is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Chun received a commission on March 30, 2022.
Judge Chun's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Chun's own (checked October 9, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
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 Chun decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In State of Washington v. Trump, Chun held that several provisions of the challenged executive order violated the separation of powers doctrine.
“There is no genuine dispute as to any material fact that EO §§ 2(a), 4(a), 4(b), 7(a), and 7(b) violate the separation of powers doctrine and are therefore unlawful.”
In the Shapiro union fiduciary-duty case, concluded that LMRDA section 501 did not give the unions themselves a federal right of action and dismissed their complaint with prejudice.
“the Court concludes that section 501 does not provide unions a right of action.”
Procedural preferences
In FTC v. Amazon, Chun distinguished Viveros v. Audible because Amazon's Prime enrollment disclosures appeared during a marketplace purchase, a different context from the free-trial enrollment in Viveros.
“Here, the Prime upsells occurred while the consumer was attempting to make a purchase on Amazon's marketplace, not start a Prime free trial.”
In the FTC antitrust case against Amazon, Chun denied the American Booksellers Association's intervention motion and said it could seek leave to file an amicus brief.
“ORDER denying ABA's 205 Motion to Intervene. As suggested by, Defendant, Dkt. # 233 at 15, if ABA wishes to submit an amicus brief, it may move the Court to do so.”
In one employment case, Chun denied a discovery motion without prejudice when the moving papers identified inconsistent sets of requests and directed the parties to confer before a revised motion.
“The Court will not speculate as to what is at issue.”
Cautions
In FTC v. Amazon, Chun denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motions. He held that the Prime enrollment disclosures could not be found clear and conspicuous as a matter of law in the context alleged by the FTC.
“within the context consumers were presented with the UPDP, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that the disclosures would be clear and conspicuous to any reasonable consumer.”
In an unopposed summary judgment motion, Chun still reviewed the record for evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claims. He granted judgment where the plaintiff supplied no evidence connecting the alleged assault to the employee’s job duties or showing notice of unfitness.
“Plaintiff presents no evidence to raise an issue of fact as to whether the alleged assaults were within the scope of Austin’s employment.”
In one insurance coverage action, the court twice denied default judgment against underlying claimants before granting a later renewed request. The second denial called for legal authority addressing the specific relationship between insurer and underlying claimants.
“The motion does not appear to cite any legal authority involving the”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER denying Defendants' 83 84 Motions to Dismiss for the reasons discussed herein. Signed by Judge John H. Chun.”
“SEALED ORDER re Defendant's 127 MOTION to Dismiss & Plaintiffs' 167 MOTION to Bifurcate. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the 127 Motion to Dismiss as described herein. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs until 10/31/2024, leave to file a Second Amended Complaint as to any claims dismissed without prejudice.”
“ORDER denying ABA's 205 Motion to Intervene. As suggested by, Defendant, Dkt. # 233 at 15, if ABA wishes to submit an amicus brief, it may move the Court to do so. Signed by Judge John H. Chun.”
In a pro se prisoner civil-rights case referred to Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan, Chun adopted her report and recommendation denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Quote: 'Given the foregoing, the Court APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R. Plaintiff's application to proceed with this action in forma pauperis (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.' This screening-stage disposition did not decide a party merits motion and illustrates Chun's handling of prisoner pauper applications and Section 1915A review.
“Being fully advised, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part both motions.”
“For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s summary judgment motion and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.”
“For all these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
“Being fully advised, for the reasons presented by Defendant, the Court DENIES the motion.”
“the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss under the first-to-file rule, 3 Dkt. # 19, 1 and DISMISSES this action without prejudice.”
“Being fully advised, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.”
“the Court GRANTS American Family’s motion for summary 20 judgment (Dkt. # 29).”
“Given the foregoing questions, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.”
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 | 1 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 1 | 5 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 6 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 2 |
| Mar 2023 | 8 | 1 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 1 |
| 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 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle), not for Judge Chun: 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 Chun with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Chun, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Chun's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace