Tiffany M. Cartwright
How Judge Cartwright rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Cartwright
Tiffany Mae Cartwright is a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Appointed by President Joseph R. Biden, Judge Cartwright received a commission on July 18, 2023.
Judge Cartwright's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Cartwright, 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
Send all counsel a copy of any email to the courtroom deputy.
“All counsel should be copied on the e-mail when communicating with the courtroom deputy.”
Discovery
Before filing a civil discovery motion, request a conference and file a joint dispute statement of no more than three pages.
“before filing any discovery motions, Judge Cartwright requires the parties to request a conference with the Court.”
Discovery
File a joint discovery dispute statement of no more than three pages.
“The joint statement shall be no more than three pages and shall be filed via CM/ECF.”
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 Cartwright decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In OEG Inc. v. Korum, she remanded a removed property dispute after finding that state-law replevin and conversion claims over tangible property were not equivalent to the Copyright Act's exclusive rights and did not create federal jurisdiction.
“Copyright law does not preempt state laws with respect to 'activities violating legal or equitable rights that are not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright[.]'”
In a cargo insurance dispute, the court treated the driver’s temperature-setting error as the covered cause of loss despite a refrigeration-temperature exclusion. United Financial Casualty Co. v. Roadmax Inc., Dkt. 37 (2025-01-10).
“the UFCC policy does cover Defendants’ loss.”
Procedural preferences
In Stickley v. Unum, Cartwright reviewed the long-term disability claim de novo but found that the claimant had not proved disability when she stopped working; she granted Unum judgment on the benefits claim.
“Accordingly, Stickley has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was disabled as of April 19, 2019.”
In Crary v. State of Washington, she adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denied a pro se plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the proposed complaint for failure to state a claim.
“ORDER ADOPTING 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed IFP (Dkt. 9) is denied and the proposed complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.”
In a civil-rights case brought without payment of filing fees, the court quashed defective workplace service but kept the claims alive and arranged a renewed service attempt. D’allo v. Modrijan, Dkt. 45 (2025-04-28).
“The Court agrees that Defendants were not properly served.”
Cautions
In a land dispute involving a public trail, Cartwright declined to grant ejectment automatically after deciding title. She required consideration of the equitable factors in Arnold v. Melani and denied the county’s request without prejudice to development of that record.
“The Court cannot, without more definitive instruction from the Washington courts, ‘mechanically’ grant an injunction to King County absent consideration of the Arnold factors.”
The court refused a default declaration against absent defendants because it would contradict the coverage ruling entered against the defendants who litigated the merits. United Financial Casualty Co. v. Roadmax Inc., Dkt. 37 (2025-01-10).
“For this reason, UFCC’s motion for default judgment is DENIED.”
In the ZoomInfo securities case, the court dismissed claims against sponsor firms because the complaint did not connect their board appointment rights or stock sales to particular misleading statements or control over the company’s daily affairs.
“This is insufficient to plead control-person liability.”
In Lopez, the court rejected emotional distress damages under the pleaded family-leave and wage statutes while allowing amendment to add facts supporting a different claim.
“emotional distress damages are not available as a remedy for violations of the FMLA or PFMLA.”
In Akil v. Freedom Mortgage Corp., Cartwright denied sanctions because the lender’s mistaken reading of the borrower’s consumer protection pleading did not make its dismissal argument frivolous or in bad faith.
“The Court will not sanction Defendant for this mistake.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“ORDER granting Plaintiff's 20 Motion to Remand. Per LCR 3(i), case will be remanded on the 15th day following the date of this Order, on 2/18/2025. Signed by District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright.”
“ORDER granting Defendants' 24 Motion to Seal; granting Plaintiff's 20 Motion to Remand.”
“ORDER granting Unum's 14 Motion for Judgment; denying Stickley's 15 Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record and 17 Cross-Motion for Judgment. Signed by District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright.”
“denying Stickley's 15 Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record and 17 Cross-Motion for Judgment.”
Cartwright adopted Magistrate Judge David W. Christel's report and recommendation, denied a pro se plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. This screening-stage disposition did not decide a party motion and illustrates her review of magistrate recommendations.
Cartwright adopted Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke's R&R and dismissed a pro se action sua sponte and without prejudice for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and Cartwright continued his in forma pauperis status on appeal on February 7, 2025.
“Petitioner’s federal habeas Petition is dismissed without prejudice.”
“Defendant King County’s motion for summary judgment against the Spencer Plaintiffs (Dkt. 19) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“King County’s motion for ejectment (Dkt. 72) is DENIED without prejudice.”
“The Court thus DENIES UFCC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment”
“default judgment, Dkt. 23, is DENIED.”
“partial summary judgment, Dkt. 26, is GRANTED.”
“the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to quash service of process but”
“Plaintiff Ohio Funds’ motion, Dkt. 35, is GRANTED.”
“All other motions (Dkt. 30, 38, 40) are DENIED.”
“The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’”
“The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss”
“motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.”
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 | 7 |
| 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 | 7 | 2 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
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 Cartwright: 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 Cartwright with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Cartwright, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Cartwright's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace