United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Northern District of California
Ninth Circuit
Judgeships
Posts: 14
Judges: 14
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Richard Seeborg
Active judges: Vince Girdhari Chhabria, James Donato, Beth Labson Freeman, Haywood Stirling Gilliam Jr., Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Eumi Lee, Rita Lin, Araceli Martinez-Olguin, P. Casey Pitts, Jacqueline Scott Corley, Richard Seeborg, Trina Thompson, Jon S. Tigar, Noël Wise 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

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California is one of 94 United States district courts. It is headquartered in San Francisco, with courthouses in Oakland, San Jose, and Eureka. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in downtown San Francisco at the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse.

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are no current vacancies on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, out of the court's 14 judicial positions.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominees for this court.

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Richard Seeborg	Barack Obama (D)	January 4, 2010 -	Yale College, 1978	Columbia University School of Law, 1981
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers	Barack Obama (D)	November 21, 2011 -	Princeton University, 1987	University of Texas Law, 1991
Jon S. Tigar	Barack Obama (D)	January 18, 2013 -	Williams College, 1984	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1989
Beth Labson Freeman	Barack Obama (D)	February 26, 2014 -	University of California, Berkeley, 1976	Harvard Law, 1979
James Donato	Barack Obama (D)	February 26, 2014 -	University of California, Berkeley, 1983	Stanford Law, 1988
Vince Girdhari Chhabria	Barack Obama (D)	March 7, 2014 -	University of California, Santa Cruz, 1991	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1998
Haywood Stirling Gilliam Jr.	Barack Obama (D)	December 19, 2014 -	Yale University, 1991	Stanford Law School, 1994
Jacqueline Scott Corley	Joe Biden (D)	March 30, 2022 -	University of California, Berkeley	Harvard Law School
Trina Thompson	Joe Biden (D)	August 5, 2022 -	University of California, Berkeley	University of California, Berkeley
Araceli Martinez-Olguin	Joe Biden (D)	March 3, 2023 -	Princeton University, 1999	University of California, Berkeley School of Law, 2004
P. Casey Pitts	Joe Biden (D)	July 7, 2023 -	Yale University, 2003	Yale Law School, 2008
Rita Lin	Joe Biden (D)	October 4, 2023 -	Harvard College	Harvard Law School
Eumi Lee	Joe Biden (D)	May 7, 2024 -	Pomona College	Georgetown University Law Center
Noël Wise	Joe Biden (D)	December 19, 2024 -	University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 1989	Nova Southeastern University, 1993

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democratic appointed: 14
• Republican appointed: 0

Senior judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Thelton Henderson	Jimmy Carter (D)	November 28, 1998 -	University of California, Berkeley, 1956	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1962
Maxine Chesney	Bill Clinton (D)	June 30, 2009 -	University of California, Berkeley, 1964	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1967
Charles Breyer	Bill Clinton (D)	December 31, 2011 -	Harvard College, 1963	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1966
Saundra Armstrong	George H.W. Bush (R)	March 23, 2012 -	California State University, Fresno, 1969	University of San Francisco School of Law, 1977
Susan Illston	Bill Clinton (D)	July 1, 2013 -	Duke University, 1970	Stanford Law School, 1973
Claudia Wilken	Bill Clinton (D)	December 17, 2014 -	Stanford University, 1971	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1975
William Alsup	Bill Clinton (D)	January 21, 2021 -	Mississippi State University, 1967	Harvard University, 1971
Jeffrey White	George W. Bush (R)	February 1, 2021 -	City University of New York, Queens College, 1967	State University of New York, 1970
Phyllis Hamilton	Bill Clinton (D)	February 1, 2021 -	Stanford University, 1974	Santa Clara University School of Law, 1976
Edward Chen	Barack Obama (D)	May 17, 2022 -	University of California, Berkeley, 1975	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1979
William Orrick III	Barack Obama (D)	May 17, 2023 -	Yale, 1976	Boston College Law School, 1979
Edward J. Davila	Barack Obama (D)	December 20, 2024 -	California State University, San Diego, 1976	University of California, 1979

Senior judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democratic appointed: 10
• Republican appointed: 2

Magistrate judges

Federal magistrate judges are federal judges who serve in United States district courts, but they are not appointed by the president and they do not serve life terms. Magistrate judges are assigned duties by the district judges in the district in which they serve. They may preside over most phases of federal proceedings, except for criminal felony trials. The specific duties of a magistrate judge vary from district to district, but the responsibilities always include handling matters that would otherwise be on the dockets of the district judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve for renewable terms of eight years. Some federal district courts have part-time magistrate judges, who serve for renewable terms of four years.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Laurel Beeler	United States District Court for the Northern District of California	January 4, 2010 -	Bowdoin College	University of Washington School of Law
Donna Ryu	United States District Court for the Northern District of California	March 1, 2010 -	Yale, 1982	University of California, Berkeley, 1986
Nathanael Cousins	United States District Court for the Northern District of California	July 5, 2011 -	Stanford University	University of California, Hastings
Kandis Westmore	United States District Court for the Northern District of California	February 21, 2012 -	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	July 30, 2015 -	Princeton University, 1986	Stanford Law School, 1989
Susan van Keulen	United States District Court for the Northern District of California	January 3, 2017 -	University of California, Davis, 1984	UCLA School of Law, 1988
Robert Illman	United States District Court for the Northern District of California	November 6, 2017 -	Covenant College	University of Alabama School of Law
Virginia DeMarchi	United States District Court for the Northern District of California	June 4, 2018 -	Stanford University, 1990	Harvard Law School, 1993
Thomas Hixson	United States District Court for the Northern District of California	September 4, 2018 -	Harvard University	Harvard Law School
Alex Tse	United States District Court for the Northern District of California	January 28, 2020 -	University of California, Berkeley	University of California's Hastings College of the Law, 1990

Former chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in an Article III circuit or district court, or on the United States Court of International Trade, a judge must be in active service and hold seniority over the court's commissioned judges who are 64 years of age or under, have served one year or more, and have not previously served as chief judge.

In the event that no judge on the court meets those qualifications, the youngest judge in regular active service aged 65 years or more and who has served as a judge for one year or more shall become chief judge. If no judge meets those qualifications, the judge holding seniority in active service who has not served as chief before shall become the chief judge.

The chief judge serves for a term of seven years until another judge becomes eligible to serve in the position. No judge is permitted to serve as chief judge after reaching the age of 70 years unless no other judge is qualified to serve.

Unlike the chief justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of their term and does not create a vacancy on the court by the fact of their promotion.

On the United States Court of Federal Claims, the chief judge is selected by the president of the United States. The judge must be less than 70 years of age. A chief may serve until they reach age 70 or until another judge is designated by the president as the new chief judge. If the president selects a new chief judge, the former chief judge may continue active service on the court for the remainder of their appointed term.

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)

Former judges

For more information about the judges of the Northern District of California, see former federal judges of the Northern District of California.

Jurisdiction

The Counties of the Northern District of California (click for larger map)

The Northern District of California has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

There are three court divisions, each covering the following counties:

The Oakland Division, covering Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

The San Francisco Division, covering Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties.

The San Jose Division, covering Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties.

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2024.

Click [show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.

Caseload statistics explanation
Term	Explanation
Cases filed and terminated	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columns Cases filed and Cases terminated.
Average time from filing to disposition	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to date of disposition (acquittal, sentencing, dismissal, etc.). The chart below reflects the table columns Median time (Criminal) and Median time (Civil).
Starting case load	The number of cases pending from the previous calendar year.
Cases filed	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year.
Cases terminated	The total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year.
Remaining cases	The number of civil and criminal cases pending at the end of a given year.
Median time (Criminal)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. In criminal cases, the date of disposition occurs on the day of sentencing or acquittal/dismissal.
Median time (Civil)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition.
Three-year civil cases	The number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year.
Vacant posts	The number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant.
Trial/Post	The number of trials completed divided by the number of authorized judgeships on the court. Trials include evidentiary trials, hearings on temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions.
Source: United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

United States District Court for the Northern District of California caseload stats, 2010-2023
Year	Cases Filed	Cases Terminated	Cases Pending	Number of Judgeships	Vacant Judgeship Months	Average Total Filings per Judgeship	Trials Completed per Judgeship	Median time from filing to disposition, criminal	Median time from filing to disposition, civil	Three-year civil cases (#)	Three-year civil cases (%)
2010	7,565	8,167	7,662	14	29	540	13	9	8	726	11
2011	8,022	8,120	7,042	14	17	573	19	9	8	511	8
2012	8,046	8,037	7,267	14	37	575	13	9	6	454	8
2013	7,385	7,756	6,744	14	34	528	10	11	8	406	7
2014	6,749	7,277	6,244	14	6	482	12	13	8	430	8
2015	7,501	6,717	7,046	14	0	536	11	13	8	537	9
2016	8,328	6,892	8,404	14	0	595	11	15	7	471	7
2017	8,510	7,707	9,199	14	0	608	9	21	7	469	6
2018	9,077	7,910	10,344	14	0	648	11	16	8	834	9
2019	9,645	7,990	11,961	14	0	689	9	12	9	1,689	16
2020	10,313	9,238	13,036	14	0	737	5	13	11	1,039	9
2021	10,990	10,987	13,012	14	34	785	8	16	9	1,050	9
2022	10,090	8,936	14,246	14	56	721	9	19	8	1,445	11
2023	7,569	7,606	14,237	14	18	541	8	21	7	2,859	22
Average	8,556	8,096	9,746	14	16	611	11	14	8	923	10

History

The Northern District of California was established by Congress on September 28, 1850. Congress had organized California into two judicial districts, the Northern and the Southern, with one judgeship for each court. The district courts were not assigned to a judicial circuit, and thus were granted civil jurisdiction the same as U.S. circuit courts, except in appeals and writs of error, which are the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

After the death of the judge of the Southern District, in 1852, Congress passed a statute to give the Northern District judge authority over the Southern District as well. Two years later, the Southern District judgeship was reauthorized.

In 1855, the United States Circuit Court for the Districts of California was established. This repealed the trial court jurisdiction of the California federal district courts. The courts still continued to exercise appellate jurisdiction in certain cases involving land claims.

In 1863, the California Circuit was abolished and the Tenth Circuit was created. This circuit consisted of the California and Oregon judicial districts and eliminated the remaining appellate jurisdiction of the district courts of California.

In July 1866, the federal judiciary was organized into nine circuits. California's single judicial district, with one authorized judgeship, fell into the Ninth Circuit.

Twenty years later, the districts were again divided into the Northern and Southern districts, with one judgeship each.

The Evarts Act of 1891 reorganized the federal judiciary, establishing the federal district courts as trial courts which appealed to the circuit courts of appeal.

Over time, thirteen judicial posts were added to the Northern District for a total of fourteen posts.

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Northern District of California:

Year	Statute	Total Seats
August 5, 1886	24 Stat. 308	1
March 2, 1907	34 Stat. 1253	2
March 3, 1927	44 Stat. 1372	3
May 31, 1938	52 Stat. 584, 585	4
June 15, 1946	60 Stat. 260	5
August 3, 1949	63 Stat. 493	7
May 19, 1961	75 Stat. 80	9
March 18, 1966	80 Stat. 75	9
June 2, 1970	84 Stat. 294	11
October 20, 1978	92 Stat. 1629	12
December 1, 1990	104 Stat. 5089	14

Noteworthy cases

• Judge orders California to pay for gender realignment surgery (2015)

Click for summary→

Michelle-Lael Norsworthy, a transgender woman, was convicted in 1987 of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. She received hormone therapy while in prison and requested gender realignment surgery, which the state initially refused. Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that denying Norsworthy the surgery violated her constitutional right to receive proper medical care. Judge Tigar ordered the state to schedule the surgery as soon as possible. Articles: Washington Post, "California prison ordered to grant inmate’s sex change surgery," April 3, 2015 News 10, "Judge orders California to pay for inmate's sex change," April 4, 2015

• Dismissal of suit over website's disclosure of members' HIV status (2014)      Judge(s):Lucy H. Koh (Doe v. SuccessfulMatch.com, 5:13-cv-03376-LHK)	Click for summary→
On April 16, 2014, Judge Lucy H. Koh granted SuccessfulMatch.com's motion to dismiss a lawsuit for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. 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 their anonymous profiles (i.e., their STD statuses) would be available to all of SuccessfulMatch.com's users. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit in July 2013, alleging violations of California's deceptive business practices law, as well as its Consumer Legal Remedies Act. 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."

• Student-athlete class action suit against NCAA (2014-2021) (National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston)	Click for summary→
In 2014, while O'Bannon v. NCAA was being litigated, a class of D1 student-athletes challenged the NCAA's compensation system for its student-athletes with the U.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. Following the 9th Circuit's opinion in O'Bannon, the NCAA requested that the Northern District of California issue a judgment on the pleadings in Alston, citing res judicata. The NCAA argued that the O'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, the Alston antitrust challenges must not be allowed to proceed. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the matters at issue in O'Bannon were different from those in Alston. One difference was that the student-athletes in Alston challenged limits on non-cash, education-related benefits, unlike the O'Bannon plaintiffs. Both parties filed for summary judgment. The district court denied the NCAA's motion and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court applied the antitrust law Rule of Reason standard in order to discern whether or not the NCAA's compensation rules violated Section 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 the Sherman Act. To resolve the challenges, the district court implemented the student-athletes' proposed LRA via permanent injunction. The NCAA appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. After the NCAA filed their appeal, the State of California enacted the Fair 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 the O’Bannon litigation. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed 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. Click here for more information.

• Class status granted in Nissan brake failure case (2013)      Judge(s):Phyllis Hamilton (Banks, et al v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al, C 11-2022 PJH)	Click for summary→
On December 19, 2013, Judge Phyllis 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."

• Attorneys' fees granted in case of cop who shot woman (2013)      Judge(s):Susan Illston (A.D., et al v. State of California Highway Patrol, et al, 3:07-cv-05483-SI)	Click for summary→
On November 27, 2013, Judge Susan Illston awarded nearly $1 million in attorneys' fees to the children of a woman who was shot 12 times by a police officer without a legitimate 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. The Ninth Circuit later overturned that jury verdict in April 2011 based on Markgraf's qualified 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 the United 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).

• California fishing license fees ruled unconstitutional (2013)      Judge(s):Donna Ryu (Marilley v. Bonham, 4:11-cv-02418-DMR)	Click for summary→
On October 16, 2013, Judge Donna 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 for summary 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 for summary judgment, and granted the fishermens', declaring the licensing fee structure unconstitutional.

• Gun store zoning restriction (2013)      Judge(s):William Orrick III (Teixeira, et al v. County of Alameda, et al, 12-cv-03288-WHO)	Click for summary→
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 Judge Susan Illston, who said that under the United States Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the zoning law was a “presumptively valid restriction.” The plaintiffs amended their complaint and refiled it, but Judge William 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 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the ordinance as constitutional in October 2017. Judge Wilken ruled that the CalPERS policy on gay and lesbian couples was unconstitutional in May 2012.

• UC computer research center (2009-2011)      Judge(s):William Alsup (Save Strawberry Canyon v. Department of Energy, No. C 08-03494 WHA)	Click for summary→
On August 18, 2009, Judge William 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. 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. 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.

• Samsung, Sharp television antitrust case (2010)      Judge(s):Susan Illston (In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, Nos. M 07-1827 SI, 1827)	Click for summary→
On March 29, 2010, Judge Susan 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.

• Facebook privacy (2010)      Judge(s):Richard Seeborg (Lane v. Facebook, No. C 08-3845 RS)	Click for summary→
Judge Richard 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.

• Biotech beets (2009-2010)      Judge(s):Jeff White (Center for Food Safety, et al v. Vilsack, et al, C 08-00484 JSW)	Click for summary→
On September 21, 2009, Judge Jeff White ruled that the federal government did not properly examine the environmental impact of sugar beets created by genetic engineering. 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.

• Home care wage hold injunction (2009)      Judge(s):Claudia Wilken (Martinez v. Schwarzenegger, C-09-02306 CW)	Click for summary→
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 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger cited this as an example of federal judges interfering with the rights of California to rule itself. 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. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Schwarzenegger administration's request for a stay of Judge Wilken's decision on July 14, 2009.

• California desert case (2009)      Judge(s):Susan Illston (Center for Biological Diversity, et al. vs. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, et al., No. C 06-4884 SI)	Click for summary→
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.

Noteworthy events

Federal Judicial Conference recommendation (2019)

In March 2019, the Federal Judicial Conference (FJC) recommended that four judgeships be added to the district. Based on FJC data, the district handled 622 weighted filings per judgeship from September 2017 to September 2018. Weighted filings are a specific metric used by the federal judiciary that accounts for the different amounts of time judges require to resolve types of civil and criminal cases. The national average in that period for weighted filings per judgeship was 513.

The FJC is the policy-making body for the United States federal courts system. It was first organized as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges in 1922. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States serves as chair of the conference. The members of the conference are the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each regional judicial circuit.

Federal courthouse

Four separate courthouses serve the Northern District of California.

About United States District Courts

The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. There are 94 such courts. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of both law and equity.

There is a United States bankruptcy court and a number of bankruptcy judges associated with each United States district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and most districts have more than one.

There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. District courts in three insular areas—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts. Despite their name, these courts are technically not District Courts of the United States. Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article III of the Constitution, and serve terms of 10 years rather than for life.

There are 677 U.S. District Court judgeships.

The number of federal district judge positions is set by the U.S. Congress in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133, which authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, making changes and adjustments in these numbers from time to time.

In order to relieve the pressure of trying the hundreds of thousands of cases brought before the federal district courts each year, many trials are tried by juries, along with a presiding judge.

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of district court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through September 1 of the first year of presidents' second term in office. At this point in the term, President Obama had the most district court appointments with 19.

Judges by district

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each district and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies in a district and how many pending nominations for that district are before the United States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line, and you can navigate through the pages by clicking the arrows at the top of the table. It is updated every Monday.

Judicial selection

The district courts are served by Article III federal judges who are appointed for life during "good behavior." They are usually first recommended by senators (or members of the House, occasionally). The President of the United States makes the appointments, which must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.

Step	A Candidacy Proceeds	A Candidacy Halts
1. Recommendation made by Congress Member to the President	President Nominates to Senate Judiciary Committee	President Declines Nomination
2. Senate Judiciary Committee interviews Candidate	Sends candidate to Senate for confirmation	Returns candidate to President, who may re-nominate to Committee
3. Senate votes on candidate confirmation	Candidate becomes federal judge	Candidate does not receive judgeship

Magistrate judges

The district courts are also served by magistrate judges. Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The chief judge of each district appoints one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• District of Alaska
• District of Arizona
• Central District of California
• Eastern District of California
• Southern District of California
• District of Hawaii
• District of Idaho
• District of Montana
• District of Nevada
• District of Oregon
• Eastern District of Washington
• Western District of Washington
• United States District Court for the District of Guam
• United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• United States District Court for the Northern District of California Official Website
• United States Attorney for the Northern District of California Official Website
• Federal Judicial Center: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Website
• Judges of the Northern District of California