Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What motions, rulings, or settlements have been issued in Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS since filing?
Executive summary
Court records show a civil complaint titled Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS, was filed April 26, 2016 and the complaint text is widely available online (e.g., complaint PDF/transcript) [1] [2]. Available sources in your search results contain the original complaint and docket listings but do not provide a clear, consolidated listing of all motions, rulings, or final settlements entered after filing; CourtListener docket pages and document repositories are listed but their entries in the captured results do not enumerate later motions or dispositions [3] [4].
1. What the available filings show: the original complaint and public copies
The documents returned in these results include the complaint filed April 26, 2016, which alleges sexual assaults involving Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump and lays out detailed factual allegations (copies and full text appear at FactCheck.org and Archive.org) [1] [2]. Multiple repositories have reproduced that initial complaint (CourtListener links, archived PDFs and text transcriptions), indicating widespread public access to the pleading itself but not necessarily subsequent docket activity in the captured search snippets [3] [5].
2. Docket listings referenced but not parsed for rulings
CourtListener appears in the results as the central docket entry for the case and includes pages titled “Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump” and an FJC IDB entry that were last updated Aug. 8, 2025 [3] [4]. However, the search snippets provided do not extract or display specific motions, orders, rulings, or settlement entries from that docket; they only confirm the docket exists and that it was updated on CourtListener [3] [4]. Therefore, the presence of the docket is documented but its contents beyond the complaint are not shown in the captured results.
3. Public repostings and secondary sites replicate the complaint text
Sites such as DailyKos, Yumpu, Archive.org, and other mirrors have posted the complaint text or converted it to readable formats [6] [7] [2]. Those repostings focus on reproducing the pleading’s allegations rather than listing procedural history like motions to dismiss, discovery disputes, or judge rulings. The repeated circulation of Document 1 (the complaint) across multiple platforms confirms the complaint’s availability but not subsequent case events [6] [7] [2].
4. Gaps in the captured reporting — what the search results do not show
The results you provided do not include uploaded court orders, minutes, judgments, stipulations of dismissal, or notices of settlement, nor do they include a CourtListener docket text that enumerates entries beyond the complaint. Consequently, available sources do not mention any motions, rulings, or settlements occurring after the complaint filing date in a way that can be cited here [3] [4] [5]. Any statement asserting there were none would be a definitive negative not supported by these sources, so that claim must be withheld (not found in current reporting).
5. How to get the specific procedural history you asked for
To produce a complete, authoritative list of motions, orders, and settlements in Case 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS, consult the live federal docket entries: (a) view the official PACER docket for Central District of California case number 5:16‑cv‑00797 for all filings and rulings; or (b) open the full CourtListener docket page referenced in the results and scroll the chronologically ordered docket entries (links in search results point to those resources) [3] [4]. The search snippets you provided include links to those primary sources but do not include the subsequent entries themselves [3] [4].
6. Competing perspectives and caution about reposted content
The reposted complaint text has proliferated across partisan and non‑partisan sites (e.g., DailyKos, Archive.org, FactCheck.org hosts a PDF), which can create an impression of wide public access to allegations; that availability does not equal adjudication or settlement [6] [2] [1]. Some secondary sites reproduce the pleading without context about later procedural events — readers should treat repostings as copies of the complaint, not as summaries of the case outcome [6] [2] [1].
Limitations: this analysis relies only on the search results you provided. The provided sources document the complaint and point to a CourtListener docket but do not supply a clear, citable list of motions, orders, or settlement entries after filing; therefore I do not assert specifics about subsequent rulings because they are not present in these sources [3] [4] [1].