Senior judges:
William Alsup,Saundra Armstrong,Charles Breyer,Edward Chen,Maxine Chesney,Edward J. Davila,Phyllis Hamilton,Thelton Henderson,Susan Illston,William Orrick III,Jeffrey White,Claudia Wilken

Richard Seeborg

Barack Obama (D)

Yale College, 1978

Columbia University School of Law, 1981

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

Barack Obama (D)

Princeton University, 1987

University of Texas Law, 1991

Jon S. Tigar

Barack Obama (D)

Williams College, 1984

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1989

Beth Labson Freeman

Barack Obama (D)

University of California, Berkeley, 1976

Harvard Law, 1979

James Donato

Barack Obama (D)

University of California, Berkeley, 1983

Stanford Law, 1988

Vince Girdhari Chhabria

Barack Obama (D)

University of California, Santa Cruz, 1991

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1998

Haywood Stirling Gilliam Jr.

Barack Obama (D)

Yale University, 1991

Stanford Law School, 1994

Jacqueline Scott Corley

Joe Biden (D)

University of California, Berkeley

Harvard Law School

Trina Thompson

Joe Biden (D)

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, Berkeley

Araceli Martinez-Olguin

Joe Biden (D)

Princeton University, 1999

University of California, Berkeley School of Law, 2004

P. Casey Pitts

Joe Biden (D)

Yale University, 2003

Yale Law School, 2008

Rita Lin

Joe Biden (D)

Harvard College

Harvard Law School

Eumi Lee

Joe Biden (D)

Pomona College

Georgetown University Law Center

Noël Wise

Joe Biden (D)

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 1989

Nova Southeastern University, 1993

Thelton Henderson

Jimmy Carter (D)

University of California, Berkeley, 1956

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1962

Maxine Chesney

Bill Clinton (D)

University of California, Berkeley, 1964

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1967

Charles Breyer

Bill Clinton (D)

Harvard College, 1963

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1966

Saundra Armstrong

George H.W. Bush (R)

California State University, Fresno, 1969

University of San Francisco School of Law, 1977

Susan Illston

Bill Clinton (D)

Duke University, 1970

Stanford Law School, 1973

Claudia Wilken

Bill Clinton (D)

Stanford University, 1971

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1975

William Alsup

Bill Clinton (D)

Mississippi State University, 1967

Harvard University, 1971

Jeffrey White

George W. Bush (R)

City University of New York, Queens College, 1967

State University of New York, 1970

Phyllis Hamilton

Bill Clinton (D)

Stanford University, 1974

Santa Clara University School of Law, 1976

Edward Chen

Barack Obama (D)

University of California, Berkeley, 1975

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1979

William Orrick III

Barack Obama (D)

Yale, 1976

Boston College Law School, 1979

Edward J. Davila

Barack Obama (D)

California State University, San Diego, 1976

University of California, 1979

Laurel Beeler

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Bowdoin College

University of Washington School of Law

Donna Ryu

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Yale, 1982

University of California, Berkeley, 1986

Nathanael Cousins

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Stanford University

University of California, Hastings

Kandis Westmore

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

University of California, Berkeley, 1989

University of San Francisco School of Law, 1997

Sallie Kim

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Princeton University, 1986

Stanford Law School, 1989

Susan van Keulen

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

University of California, Davis, 1984

UCLA School of Law, 1988

Robert Illman

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Covenant College

University of Alabama School of Law

Virginia DeMarchi

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Stanford University, 1990

Harvard Law School, 1993

Thomas Hixson

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Harvard University

Harvard Law School

Alex Tse

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

University of California, Berkeley

University of California's Hastings College of the Law, 1990

• Phyllis Hamilton - (2015 - 2021)
• Claudia Wilken - (2012 - 2015)
• James Ware - (2011 - 2012)
• Vaughn Walker - (2004 - 2010)
• Marilyn Patel - (1997 - 2004)
• Thelton Henderson - (1990 - 1997)
• William Ingram - (1988 - 1990)
• Robert Peckham - (1976 - 1988)
• Oliver Carter - (1970 - 1976)
• George Harris - (1961 - 1970)
• Louis Goodman - (1958 - 1961)
• Michael Roche - (1948 - 1958)

Source:United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

Articles:

On April 16, 2014, JudgeLucy H. Koh granted SuccessfulMatch.com's motion to dismiss a lawsuit for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.^[10]

In the underlying case, plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 joined the site PositiveSingles.com, a website operated by SuccessfulMatch.com, which was marketed toward daters with sexually transmitted diseases. Plaintiffs said they were unaware of the fact that the details of theiranonymous profiles (i.e., their STD statuses) would be available to all of SuccessfulMatch.com's users. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed aclass-action lawsuit in July 2013, alleging violations of California's deceptive business practices law, as well as its Consumer Legal Remedies Act.^[10]

The defendant website company filed a motion to dismiss the case, and Judge Koh granted it, noting that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 "failed to specifically allege that they saw any of the statements that they claim [were] misleading, or how the website statements impacted their decisions to register with defendant's website." In addition, Koh wrote that the plaintiffs' claims failed due to the fact that they did not "allege how knowledge of defendant's omissions about affiliated sites would have impacted [their] decision to register for PositiveSingles.com."^[10]

In 2014, whileO'Bannon v. NCAA was being litigated, a class of D1 student-athletes challenged the NCAA'scompensation system for its student-athletes with theU.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of California. The NCAA compensation rules allow the NCAA to use the names, images, and likenesses ("NIL") of its student-athletes while prohibiting the student-athletes from being compensated for such use. The NCAA asserted that the rules are in service of preserving student-athletes' amateur status. Student-athletes claimed that there were Less Restrictive Alternatives ("LRAs") to preserving the student-athletes' amateur status, rather than the compensation system implemented by the NCAA. The NCAA argued that changing the compensation rules would have an anticompetitive effect in relevant consumer markets and would alter the student-athletes' amateur status.^[11]

Following the9th Circuit's opinion inO'Bannon, the NCAA requested that the Northern District of California issue a judgment on the pleadings inAlston, citingres judicata.^[12] The NCAA argued that theO'Bannon proceedings required no more than that the NCAA allow member schools to provide full education-related costs of attendance at schools ("COA") to student-athletes and that since the NCAA had already updated its bylaws according to this ruling, theAlston antitrust challenges must not be allowed to proceed. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the matters at issue inO'Bannon were different from those inAlston. One difference was that the student-athletes inAlston challenged limits on non-cash, education-related benefits, unlike theO'Bannon plaintiffs. Both parties filed forsummary judgment. The district court denied the NCAA's motion and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court applied the antitrust lawRule of Reason standard in order to discern whether or not the NCAA's compensation rules violatedSection 1 of the Sherman Act. In its ruling on March 8, 2019, the Northern District of California held that the NCAA's limits on education-related benefits unreasonably restrained trade and enjoined, or prohibited, those limits. The court did not hold that the NCAA's limits on compensation unrelated to education violated theSherman Act. To resolve the challenges, the district court implemented the student-athletes' proposed LRA via permanentinjunction.^[11]

The NCAA appealed to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. After the NCAA filed their appeal, the State ofCalifornia enacted theFair Pay to Play Act, requiring the NCAA and its member institutions to allow student-athletes who are enrolled in California-based member schools to earn compensation from the use of their NILs. In response, the NCAA created a working group that recommended allowing NIL benefits that are education-related and maintain the distinction between college and professional sports, as recognized in theO’Bannon litigation.^[11]

On appeal, the 9th Circuitaffirmed the district court's judgment of liability and injunction, holding that the district court was proper in its conclusion that the NCAA limits on education-related benefits violated the Sherman Act.^[11]

Click here for more information.

On December 19, 2013, JudgePhyllis Hamilton granted class certification in a case filed against Nissan over the car manufacturer's faulty Delta Stroke Sensor breaking system in model year 2004-2008 Armadas and Titans and Infiniti QX56s manufactured prior to 2008. In the underlying case, plaintiffs Brandon and Erin Banks and David Soloway experienced brake failure while driving their cars, alleging that the system was defective and malfunctioned in such a way as to allow up to a 60% loss of power to the vehicle's brakes.

The plaintiffs claimed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration alerted Nissan about hundreds of complaints the agency received about the faulty breaks, but that the car company failed to tell current owners or potential customers about the known defect. Because the plaintiffs' pleadings exhibited sufficient commonality, numerosity, typicality, and adequacy of legal representation, Judge Hamilton ruled that the class deserved certification, specifically, "[a]ll consumer residents in California who own 2004-2008 Nissan Armada, Titan (equipped with [Vehicle Dynamic Control]), and Infiniti QX56 vehicles manufactured before April 1, 2008 . . . and all consumer residents in California who do not presently own Affected Vehicles but incurred monetary loss caused by the failure of the Delta Stroke Sensor in their Affected Vehicles."^[13][14]

On November 27, 2013, JudgeSusan Illston awarded nearly $1 million in attorneys' fees to the children of a woman who was shot 12 times by a police officer without alegitimate law enforcement objective.

In March 2006, Karen Eklund stole a car and led police on a high-speed chase before ramming the stolen vehicle into a police car. California Highway Police officer Stephen Markgraf was the only one to open fire and killed Eklund. Eklund's daughters, minors at the time, filed a wrongful death suit, and a jury awarded them $30,000 each in damages.

TheNinth Circuit later overturned that jury verdict in April 2011 based on Markgraf'squalified immunity defense, meaning that as a state official, he was shielded from liability because he was performing the discretionary functions of his job. At that time, the court also vacated the children's award of attorneys' fees. The court's qualified immunity ruling was withdrawn one year later in April 2012. In April 2013, the federal appeals court reconsidered the case and decided that Markgraf was not immune to the allegations levied against him because he "acted with the purpose to harm unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective." Markgraf attempted to further appeal the case to theUnited States Supreme Court, but his writ of certiorari was rejected in October 2013. The next month, Judge Illston awarded Eklund's daughters approximately $908,961 in attorneys' fees and expenses ($559,861 for the lower court trial, $288,080 for the various appeals to the Ninth Circuit, and $57,428 for the fee petition).^{[15][16][17][18]}

On October 16, 2013, JudgeDonna Ryu ruled that California's fishing license fee was unconstitutional due to its tendency to favor in-state applicants over out-of-state applicants. In the underlying case, out-of-state commercial fisherman filed suit over the fee differential charged for their commercial fishing licenses and vessel registration, costs that were usually two to three times more expensive than those for in-state licensees.

The fishermen alleged that the difference in pricing infringed upon their right to equal protection and their right to the same privileges and immunities as citizens of another state. Both parties filed motions forsummary judgment (i.e., a judgment in their favor without a full trial). Defendant Charlton Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Game, said that by charging nonresidents more money, the state was simply "recouping [its] fair share" of what was being used by citizens hailing from other states. Judge Ryu found that California was offering an unfair business advantage to its own residents. Judge Ryu denied Bonham's motion forsummary judgment, and granted the fishermens', declaring the licensing fee structure unconstitutional.^[19]

Plaintiffs John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaz were barred from opening a gun store within 500 feet of a residential area due to a county zoning law. They filed suit on June 25, 2012, claiming that their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms and to due process and equal protection had been infringed. Their suit was dismissed by JudgeSusan Illston, who said that under theUnited States Supreme Court decision inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, the zoning law was a “presumptively valid restriction.”

The plaintiffs amended their complaint and refiled it, but JudgeWilliam Orrick III also dismissed the case on September 9, 2013, writing that not only had they failed to allege the county denied their land use permit without a rational basis, but he was also “unaware of any authority stating or implying that the Second Amendment contemplates a right to ‘convenient access to a neighborhood gun store.’” The plaintiffs filed an appeal with theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the ordinance as constitutional in October 2017.Cite error: Closing</ref> missing for<ref> tag

Judge Wilken ruled that the CalPERS policy on gay and lesbian couples was unconstitutional in May 2012.^[20]

On August 18, 2009, JudgeWilliam Alsup issued an injunction against the University of California-Berkeley over construction of a new computer research center for the U.S. Department of Energy. As part of the injunction, the judge ordered environmental impact studies on Strawberry Canyon before any construction could begin.^[21]

Because the project was funded fully by the federal government, Judge Alsup found it was important that a federal agency conduct environmental testing in the interest of the project's sustainability.^[21] After an extensive study by the Department of Energy, it was found that there would be no significant impact to the area where the facility would be built. Judge Alsup ruled in November 2011 that the computer research center construction could begin.^[22]

On March 29, 2010, JudgeSusan Illston authorized a class-action lawsuit against nine television makers over allegations of price-fixing. The lawsuit was filed by a group of direct buyers who bought the televisions made by the two companies from 1999 to 2006. As part of the certification, customers in 22 other states and the District of Columbia were able to join the lawsuit.

In October 2012, it was announced that the manufacturers did participate in price-fixing on LCD flat-panel screen televisions. The television makers agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement which directly refunded consumers who were affected by the scheme.^[23]

JudgeRichard Seeborg presided in a case involving privacy issues and the social media website, Facebook. A class-action lawsuit was filed in 2007 against Facebook for its use of "Beacon," a program that kept track of a person's purchasing habits and web-browsing activity. As part of the settlement, Facebook agreed to start a nonprofit organization to advocate web privacy. Most of the class did not receive financial damages.^[24]

On September 21, 2009, JudgeJeff White ruled that the federal government did not properly examine the environmental impact of sugar beets created by genetic engineering.^[25] In August 2010, Judge White found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture did not properly ascertain the environmental impact of genetically engineered sugar beets before granting approval. As a result, the judge disallowed the cultivation of the vegetable before a new impact statement was conducted and approval granted from the USDA.^[26]

In June 2009, Judge Wilken blocked a $2-per-hour wage cut for tens of thousands of in-home care workers for elderly and disabled Californians, which had been ordered by GovernorArnold Schwarzenegger.^[27] Schwarzenegger cited this as an example of federal judges interfering with the rights of California to rule itself.^[28]

However, some local governments blocked Wilken's order, and he re-ordered state officials to remove procedural obstacles immediately. Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Napa, Solano, and Yolo Counties were affected by the plan that temporarily reduced pay for 60 days.^[27] TheNinth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Schwarzenegger administration's request for a stay of Judge Wilken's decision onJuly 14, 2009.^[27]

On September 29, 2009, Judge Illston ruled against a land management plan by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for a California desert. Judge Illston found that a plan to designate 5,000 miles of the West Mojave desert for off-road vehicle use did not take into account environmental impacts on the desert.^[29]

What's on my ballot? |Elections in 2025 |How to vote |How to run for office |Ballot measures

Who represents me? |U.S. President |U.S. Congress |Federal courts |State executives |State legislature |State and local courts |Counties |Cities |School districts |Public policy

Chief Judge: Richard Seeborg  •  Beth Labson Freeman  •  Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers  •  Trina Thompson  •  Jon S. Tigar  •  Jacqueline Scott Corley  •  James Donato  •  Vince Girdhari Chhabria  •  Haywood Stirling Gilliam, Jr.  •  Noël Wise  •  Rita Lin  •  Eumi Lee  •  Araceli Martínez-Olguín  •  P. Casey Pitts

Thelton Henderson  •  William Alsup (California)  •  Saundra Armstrong  •  Charles Breyer  •  Maxine Chesney  •  Phyllis Hamilton  •  Susan Illston  •  Claudia Wilken  •  Edward Chen  •  Jeffrey White  •  Edward J. Davila  •  William Orrick III  •  

Dal Lemmon  •  Oliver Hamlin  •  Cecil Poole  •  Ogden Hoffman  •  William Morrow  •  John Jefferson DeHaven  •  William Cary Van Fleet  •  Maurice Timothy Dooling  •  John Slater Partridge  •  Vaughn Walker  •  Jeremy Fogel  •  Marilyn Patel  •  James Ware  •  Ronald Whyte  •  Frank Henry Kerrigan  •  Harold Louderback  •  Adolphus Frederic St. Sure  •  Michael Roche (California)  •  Sherrill Halbert  •  Thomas MacBride  •  Martin Welsh  •  Robert Aguilar (California federal judge)  •  Oliver Carter  •  Barbara Caulfield  •  Herbert Erskine  •  Monroe Friedman  •  Louis Goodman  •  George Harris (California)  •  William Ingram (California)  •  Charles Legge  •  Gerald Levin  •  Eugene Lynch  •  William Orrick Jr.  •  Robert Peckham  •  Charles Renfrew  •  Robert Schnacke  •  Fern Smith (California)  •  William Sweigert  •  John Vukasin  •  Stanley Weigel  •  Spencer Williams  •  Delwen Jensen  •  Samuel Conti  •  Patrica Trumbull  •  Albert Wollenberg  •  Alfonso Zirpoli  •  Lloyd Burke  •  Martin J. Jenkins  •  Lucy H. Koh (California)  •  

Vaughn Walker  •  Thelton Henderson  •  Phyllis Hamilton  •  Marilyn Patel  •  James Ware  •  Michael Roche (California)  •  Oliver Carter  •  Louis Goodman  •  George Harris (California)  •  William Ingram (California)  •  Robert Peckham  •