When can a judge be held liable?

Useful Rulings on Conduct of Judges

Recent Rulings on Conduct of Judges

HTTP://WWW.SCSCOURT.ORG (FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY)

Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 826, 838, fn. 6.) It is further ORDERED that notice of this standing order shall be published to all attorneys practicing before this Court by appending a copy of this order to the Local Rules of Court. Dated: November 17, 2016 /s/ Risë Jones Pichon Presiding Judge” Section 15 of these rules states: “DEFAULT.

  • Hearing

LAKE LINDERO HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. VS CAROLINE FERADAY

Co. (1916) 172 Cal. 6, 11 (erroneous rulings, even when numerous and continuous, are not grounds for bias or prejudice, nor are "judges' expressions of opinion uttered in what he conceives to be the discharge of his judicial duty"). See also, Code of Civil Procedure section170.2(b), which provides with certain exceptions not here applicable: “It is not grounds for disqualification that the judge ... [h]as in any capacity expressed a view on a legal or factual issue presented in the proceeding....”

  • Hearing

ABEL CONTRERAS ET AL VS PACER CARTAGE INC ET AL

Conduct, canon 2, rule 2.2, com. 4 [“[i]t is not a violation of this Rule [regarding impartiality and fairness] for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard”].) The canons and commentary thus provide a path to ensure a self-represented litigant can be fairly heard on the merits while the court maintains its impartiality and does not assume (or appear to assume) the role of advocate or partisan. (See Cal. Code Jud.

  • Hearing

LANCE JAY ROBBINS PALOMA PARTNERSHIP VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 826. That case is not entirely on point. The due process allegations in Kloepfer primarily concerned the investigation by Commission staff. There was no allegation that Commission members, i.e. the intermediate-level decisionmakers, engaged in improper ex parte communications with a witness between the time of the administrative hearing and decision.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOSUE RAMOS VS FRANCISCO MEDINA ET AL

Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 826, 838, fn. 6.)” more effort by both parties. Under these circumstances, the court is not inclined to award sanctions to either party. Consequently, all requests for sanctions are DENIED. IV. Conclusion and Order. Defendants’ motion for an order compelling plaintiff Ramos’s attendance and testimony at deposition is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

THE SUNSET LANDMARK INVESTMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PETITIONER VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

(Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d at 540; see also Commission on Judicial Performance v. Superior Court (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 617, 623 (concluding the same).) In Marylander, a defendant in a pending civil action sought to compel memoranda from the Governor’s Office relevant to his defense. The appellate court rejected the agency’s refusal to provide the memoranda based on the common law deliberative process privilege. “[T]he Legislature has decreed there are no privileges except as provided by statute.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHERYL PAYNE ET AL VS PEDRO PRADO CEJA ET AL

Co. (1916) 172 Cal. 6, 11 [erroneous rulings, even when numerous and continuous, are not grounds for bias or prejudice; nor are “judges’ expressions of opinion uttered in what he conceives to be the discharge of his judicial duty.”].) A party’s remedy for an erroneous ruling is not a motion to disqualify, but rather review by appeal or writ. (See Ryan v.

  • Hearing

SYLVIA VERONICA SCOTT VS BURBANK UNITIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

So far as the Commission on Judicial Performance is concerned, their proceedings are made public when they reach a decision and publish their findings and orders, subject to review by the California Supreme Court. In terms of a fair trial, jurors are assigned to this court house from a circle which extends up to, but no more than twenty miles from the courthouse. There is no inherent preference for jurors from the City of Burbank.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DINA PADILLA VS. COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE AN AGENCY OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

No appearance is required under the following conditions: Case Management Conference - Case Management Program continued to 09/12/2019 at 08:30 in this department. New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 2.51. To request oral argument on this matter, ...

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DINA PADILLA VS. COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE AN AGENCY OF THE JUDICIAL BRAND

No appearance is required under the following conditions: Case Management Conference - Case Management Program continued to 06/13/2019 at 08:30 in this department. New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 11.055 To request oral argument on this matter,...

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DINA PADILLA VS. COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE AN AGENCY OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

No appearance is required under the following conditions: Case Management Conference - Case Management Program continued to 06/13/2019 at 08:30 in this department. New Case Management Statements shall be filed by all parties no later than 15 days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 11.055 To request oral argument on this matter,...

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

AUSTIN M KOOBA MD VS DIVISION OF MEDICAL QUALITY MEDICAL

In reply, Kooba provides the cite he contends supports the ALJ’s abrogation of judicial duty. AR 3880-91. Reply at 9. The Joint Appendix only includes pages 3880 to 3888. All Phillips said on those pages was that the Board’s guidelines for experts asks them to assume patient complaints are true. AR 3881. This means is that the expert is not supposed to decide who is telling the truth.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

TRAVYON C HARBOR VS MARK C KIM

In 2005, the Commission of Judicial Performance declined to take action against Judge Romero because it lacks jurisdiction over retired judges. FAP, p.5. Between 2002 and 2017, Respondent Judge Kim knew or should have known that making a false statement within any document is a crime. FAP, p.3. In 2015-16, Judge Kim took over as presiding judge over all post-conviction matters following Judge Romero’s recusal. FAP, p.5.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DEMITRIUS R. FURLOW VS SUSAN J TOWNSEND, HONORABLE

The Court notes that Plaintiff has attached a complaint about a California judge and letter that were sent to the Commission on Judicial Performance. To the extent this was intended to show compliance with section 945.4, it fails. The requisite government claim needed to be filed with the court, not with the Commission on Judicial Performance. Accordingly, the demurrer to the complaint is sustained. Judicial Immunity Defendant asserts this action is barred by judicial immunity. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TRAVYON C HARBOR VS MARK C KIM

In 2005, the Commission of Judicial Performance declined to take action against Judge Romero because it lacks jurisdiction over retired judges. FAP ¶7. . Between 2002 and 2007, Defendant Judge Mark C. Kim (“Judge Kim”) knew or should have known that making a false statement within any document is a crime. FAP ¶1. In 2015-16, Defendant Judge Kim took over as presiding judge over all post-conviction matters following Judge Romero’s recusal. FAP ¶8.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANTHONY FERRO VS JOHN PETROV

If a judge acts without jurisdiction, the judge may be subject to discipline by the Commission on Judicial Performance. A disqualified judge may violate section 170.4 by acting on matters not specifically defined in that section. If the disqualified judge does so, he or she may be subject to discipline.” Davcon, Inc. v. Roberts & Morgan (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1363. Reconsideration of a previous ruling is not one of that matters that a disqualified judge may do pursuant to CCP § 170.4.

  • Hearing

ANTHONY FERRO VS JOHN PETROV

If a judge acts without jurisdiction, the judge may be subject to discipline by the Commission on Judicial Performance. A disqualified judge may violate section 170.4 by acting on matters not specifically defined in that section. If the disqualified judge does so, he or she may be subject to discipline.” Davcon, Inc. v. Roberts & Morgan (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1363. Reconsideration of a previous ruling is not one of that matters that a disqualified judge may do pursuant to CCP § 170.4.

  • Hearing

JANE CMB DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 20 Cal.4th 371, 390). “Comparatively, other than the addition of the dignity factor, the Ramirez balancing test for determining what procedural protections are warranted, given the governmental and private interests involved, is essentially identical to that employed under the federal analysis.” Id. The foregoing authorities establish the following analytical framework for evaluating a procedural Due Process claim under the state and federal constitutions.

  • Hearing

JANE CJD DOE ET AL VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET

Commission on Judicial Performance (1999) 20 Cal.4th 371, 390). “Comparatively, other than the addition of the dignity factor, the Ramirez balancing test for determining what procedural protections are warranted, given the governmental and private interests involved, is essentially identical to that employed under the federal analysis.” Id. The foregoing authorities establish the following analytical framework for evaluating a procedural Due Process claim under the state and federal constitutions.

  • Hearing

JAMES GALLEGOS VS HAVANA HOUSE, ET AL

Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal.3d 826, 842 (ridiculing attorneys in open court). 4) Coercing a party to settle the case. Barrientos v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 63, 71-72 (imposing monetary sanctions on attorneys to coerce settlement). 5) receiving evidence out of Court. Guadalupe A. v. Superior Court (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 100, 108-109. 6) Coercing jurors into reaching a verdict. Langdon v. Superior Court (1923) 65 Cal.App. 41, 43.

  • Hearing

JULIUS M. ENGEL VS. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Notice Of Respondent Commission On Judicial Performances Joinder In Demurrer To Petition For Writ Of Mandate Or, In The Alternative, Peremptory Writ Filed By Respondent State Bar Of California Set for hearing on Thursday, September 21, 2017, Line 1, RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE's Joinder In Demurrer To Petition For Writ Of Mand...

  • Hearing

JULIUS M. ENGEL VS. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/ PROHIBITION/ CERTIFICATION Set for hearing on Thursday, September 21, 2017, Line 1, RESPONDENT THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA's DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PEREMPTORY WRIT. Hearing required. =(302/AJR)...

  • Hearing

JULIUS M. ENGEL VS. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE/ PROHIBITION/ CERTIFICATION Set for hearing on Thursday, September 21, 2017, Line 1, RESPONDENT GEORGE GASCON's DEMURRER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PEREMPTORY WRIT. Off calendar as untimely. The joinder does not comply with the notice requirements of CCP 1005. Any par...

  • Hearing

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE VS. ELAINE M. HOWLE ET AL

Other Judicial Watch, Inc.'S (Amicus Curiae) Application For Leave To File Amicus Brief In Support Of Respondents Defendants Elaine M. Howle And The California State Auditors Office Set for hearing on Thursday, August 17, 2017, Line 10, Other Judicial Watch, Inc.'S (Amicus Curiae) Application For Leave To File Amicus Brief In Support Of Res...

  • Hearing

COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE VS. ELAINE M. HOWLE ET AL

Other Judicial Watch, Inc.'S (Amicus Curiae) Application For Order Shortening Time Set for hearing on Thursday, August 17, 2017, Line 10, Other Judicial Watch, Inc.'S (Amicus Curiae) Application For Order Shortening Time Off calendar. =(302/SRB)...

  • Hearing

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.