Hon. Barbara Marie Scheper See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   3.6 - 21 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   7.0 - 2 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.


General Rating Criteria

* Temperament (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality (1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)


Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions (1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)


Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)
Comments




What others have said about Hon. Barbara Marie Scheper


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA12136
Rating:3.0
Comments:
Judge Scheper, filling in for another judge whose courtroom was dark, denied an ex parte application to advance a hearing date on motions to compel discovery. They had to be set in February, according to the online reservation system. The basis for the request was that depositions cannot start until the requested documents are received and there will be insufficient time to complete the dozen or so depositions in advance of an April trial date unless an earlier hearing on the motions could be had. She denied the unopposed application on the grounds that there was no "good cause" supporting it. Judge Scheper has earned the generally negative view the civil trial bar has of her.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11677
Rating:8.1
Comments:
I have tried one court & one jury trial before Judge Scheper. She sees through delaying tactics & doesn't suffer fools gladly. However, she will give you a fair trial, knows the Evidence Code, and is great with the jury. I didn't win all of the rulings, but I felt there was a reasonable basis for most of them. Caution: pay close attention to court rules & deadlines, as she relies on these considerably. If you follow them faithfully, she will be happy.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11040
Rating:3.0
Comments:
I am perplexed by the positive comments on this judge. I've been practicing civil litigation for over 40 years. Judge Scheper is the worst, by far. I am only infer that the positive comments were submitted by a lawyer who prevailed in one of her cases. But, of course, the test for a judge is whether he or she is fair and respectfully; and Judge Scheper fails miserably and clearly in that regard.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA10824
Rating:1.9
Comments:
One of the worst judges I've been in front of in 27 years. Ill-prepared, demeaning, emotional, short-tempered and petty. And that's just her demeanor.

As far as managing the case, rather than streamlining the litigation, she created more work for herself and everyone else in the matter. It took her three different CMC appearances (in a case with 6 attorneys) before finally ordering the case be deemed related to the resulting insurance coverage dispute. She needed an additional two months and another hearing to decide whether to consolidate discovery.

After substituting in for previous plaintiff's counsel I appeared at my first hearing (CMC) with a stipulation from all sides allowing me to file my own (amended) complaint rather than be stuck with prior counsel's complaint, e.g., to add necessary parties with a statute of limitations fast approaching, dismiss unnecessary parties, clean up the pleading, etc. We had no trial date, the case was not at issue, but she wouldn't allow the stipulation and instead required a NOTICED motion, no ex parte relief.

She used to get so upset her hand would start to shake, tremor-like. In all my years of practice I may have papered 3-4 judges, but I will NEVER let this judge preside over one of my cases again.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA10359
Rating:9.1
Comments:
Great Judge. She actually reads the motion papers! And she reads the cases too! She can be stern and doesn't like continuance requests. She doesn't always come down in your favor but she always gives you a chance to argue your case. A class act.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA10162
Rating:1.0
Comments:
In reading the negative reviews about Judge Scheper they all reminded me of my experiences before her as well. It's rare to see a judge so blatantly ignore the law and the record. In my case she denied a demurrer stating, in her order, that I had not filed separate Requests for Judicial Notice....when in fact I had and it is shown in the Court file and in the Summary of the Case. If she doesn't like you or your Client she will highlight the most trivial things and hold them against you (e.g., half a page over on the page limit) while ignoring the other sides flagrant missteps (e.g., flat out misrepresenting Supreme Court Authority). The icing on the cake was when she denied a leave to file a Compulsory Cross Complaint, something she is all but required to permit. She denied leave stating it was on the "eve of trial" when in fact it was SIX WEEKS before trial and less than four months since the Answer was filed. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize Her Honor stating it was on the "eve" of trial, i.e., the day before trial, is false as six weeks is not the day before. This is just one example of how she will build Her Record against you to obtain the result she desires in the case. 170.6 her. Funny, one person reviewing her stated she's a reason why lawyers will leave the profession. You spend time in front of this judge having your case sabotaged by Her and that's exactly how you feel.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA9821
Rating:8.6
Comments:
This judge pays incredible attention to detail and the law. As a lawyer before her, you must be prepared, punctual, and thorough, and be accurate in your briefing and presentation of the law. If you do, you'll probably do fine. If you don't, you definitely won't.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA9817
Rating:1.0
Comments:
The reviews from attorneys who have stated she is demeaning, defense oriented and intellectually inferior are so spot on that I almost cried when I read them. Scheper does not deserve to wear a robe, much less tell lawyers who are smarter than she is that she is right no matter what. A pure disgrace to the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7867
Rating:2.9
Comments:
She is a horrible, evil, mean-spirited judge. It would be malpractice not to exercise a preemptory challenge if you're representing the plaintiffs. I'm sure that the positive feedback on her is from defense counsel. No objective lawyer could have anything positive to say about her.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7745
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Horrible judge! Very defense oriented and constantly displays her bias in outrageous ways. She is a perfect example of why attorneys leave the practice of law.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7632
Rating:1.0
Comments:
She is the worst judge on the bench, hands down. She is openly hostile, takes great pleasure in demeaning attorneys, and displays an imperious and tyrannical temperament from the bench. She is rude, condescending, and intellectually dishonest. I had a case where she granted a defense motion, stating in the tentative she did so because a DFEH complaint was not judicially noticed. Ironically, she had literally just DENIED a REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE just a week earlier. When this was pointed out to her, she responded with demeaning comments designed to humiliate others, rather than acknowledge her error. She sanctions all over the place, without cause (especially if you are the plaintiff). I have no idea how she became a judge, or why she even wants the job given her obvious intolerance for attorneys, litigants, or any intellectual exercise.

Litigant

Comment #: CA7541
Rating:10.0
Comments:
No litigant always gets what they want, however Judge Scheper is a gem. Starts right on time every time. She is very neutral. I have caught her jumping to incorrect conclusions about matters and she will tend to presume a few things here or there but she is head and shoulders above the rest. Every judge should be like her.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7506
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Just awful.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA7155
Rating:6.7
Comments:
Brilliant jurist. She reads the papers diligently and has an excellent grip on the law, but she is impatient, and power-driven, and she can be sadistic at times. She has zero tolerance for any deviation from her orders even unintentionally. I gave her a 3 for temperament rather than a zero because she conducts herself with courtesy. But beware. Her courtesy is surface-deep. She is heavy handed with sanctions, and she will not hesitate to throw your case under the bus despite having discretion not to, even if it means a malpractice suit. This happened to me when she unreasonably denied my client leave to amend a complaint.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6449
Rating:7.4
Comments:
Very pleasant and respectful to counsel. She is well prepared for argument on motions. One major gripe, however. She only will schedule/hear one contested motion per day, so her calendar is a nightmare -- e.g., 5 months to hear a demurrer. Even matters entitled to a preference take months to be heard.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6387
Rating:1.8
Comments:
One of the worst animals I have ever met. Not fit for public service. There needs to be an active movement to get her off the bench. If she reads this post at all, she is not making any attempt to change her ways.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6170
Rating:1.4
Comments:
One of the worst tempered judges around. As mentioned by colleagues, unpleasant, scolds and demeans parties. A real displeasure to be in front of. And...make sure you file a timely CMC statement, otherwise be prepared with your checkbook on the spot.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA4879
Rating:1.9
Comments:
In forty years of litigation I have never seen such a biased, openly hostile judge. She is going to do what she wants to do, with no regard for the law.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4878
Rating:1.9
Comments:
This judge should not be on the bench. Her bias is obvious. She scowls in front of the jurors, and shows her impatience with older attorneys who are not as fast. She yells and scolds the parties and the attorneys that she doesn't like as if they were children. She has no patience and no objectivity. How she became a judge is inexplicable.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2993
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Likely the worst judicial temperment ever witnessed, does not read the materials before her, intolerant, dictates from the bench, will not allow argument from either side and refused to allow us to be heard after it was obvious she had the facts all wrong.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2509
Rating:3.1
Comments:
One of the worst judges I have seen. She will reach a decision about a case early on, and then she cannot be persuaded by the facts or the law. Very discourteous at times. Use your 170.6 challenge, particularly if you represent the plaintiff.

Other

Comment #: CA80
Rating:5.0
Comments:
Failed to grasp the alleged complaint regarding fraud and contract interpretation. Her reversal via a published decision by the Second District shows her lack of understanding and application of the law.