Karen E. Scott
How Judge Scott decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On an insured's motion for summary adjudication of an insurer's duty to defend, she applies California's potentiality rule with explicit burden-shifting: the insured need only show the underlying claim MAY fall within coverage, after which the insurer must prove no possibility of coverage exists. A plausible causal theory linking the additional insured's conduct to the injury is enough to trigger the duty.
“In other words, the insured need only show that the underlying claim may fall within policy coverage; the insurer must prove it cannot.”
Procedural preferences
She will not resolve genuinely disputed material facts at summary judgment and refuses invitations to make credibility determinations between conflicting deposition accounts; where one theory turns on a disputed fact she denies adjudication on that theory while granting on an independently sufficient one.
“Mt. Hawley, as the moving party, had the initial burden of establishing a potential for coverage based on undisputed material facts. Here, the material fact of whether there was, in fact, a late delivery is disputed. Thus, the Court cannot grant Mt. Hawley summary adjudication as to this theory.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons discussed below, Mt. Hawley's motion is GRANTED.”
“Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dt. 42) is GRANTED. The Court shall separately enter judgment against Plaintiff and for Defendants on all claims.”
“IT IS ORDERED that (1) the Motion for Remand (Dkt. 19) is GRANTED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered REVERSING the portion of the Commissioner's decision denying benefits and REMANDING the case for further proceedings consistent with this decision, including development of the record.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the First Amended Petition.”
“For these reasons, the Court summarily dismisses the Petition with prejudice.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1. The TRO Application (Dkt. 3 ) is granted. 2. Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Judgment shall be entered granting the Petition. 2. Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner from custody.”
“As discussed further below, the Petition is denied because Petitioner has not demonstrated that his arrest was illegal or that the immigration court's denial of bond was an abuse of discretion.”
“Based on the facts and law stated in the Petition, and in light of Respondents' lack of opposition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment be entered, as follows: 1. Granting the Petition; 2. Ordering Respondents to immediately release Petitioner from custody and to return to her all documents, identification cards, and other items confiscated by Respondents upon Petitioner's arrest”
“Based on the facts and law stated in the Petition, and in light of Respondents' lack of opposition, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judgment will be entered granting the relief requested in the Petition, as follows: 1. Respondents shall immediately release Francisco Javier Obregon Cajina (A# 246421735) from custody.”
“The Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed as Moot. (Dkt. 15.) Petitioner did not respond. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Petition as moot.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition is GRANTED IN PART, as follows: 1. Claim Two is granted. 2. Claim One is denied. 3. Claim Three is denied as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 538 days (N = 3).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 84 days (N = 3).
The reviewed recent assignments are dominated by pending alien-detainee habeas petitions filed in late May and June 2026. Her consent docket also includes Social Security disability appeals, insurance and diversity-contract disputes, consumer-protection suits, and civil-rights cases, while other matters reach her through civil referrals from district judges.
Put Judge Scott's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Scott actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Scott's own signed orders and cites them.