Hon. Elizabeth Allen White See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   5.3 - 9 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   2.0 - 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. Elizabeth Allen White


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5286
Rating:8.3
Comments:
I found Judge White well versed in the motion papers submitted. She does not allow points to be raised for the first time on reply, and and could specifically point to evidence that contradicted the erroneous assertions of counsel. Her reasoning was safe, grounded in the evidence and based on precedent - she did not seem to be the type to stretch the law. In observing her calendar before my appearances, she appears to be a pragmatic and event tempered judge.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA3655
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge White favors financial institutions, even if the evidence is contrary. She seems afraid to rule in favor of a Pro Se, even if the financial institution is CLEARLY liable. She should retire as she is nothing but a financial institution puppet.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3619
Rating:9.0
Comments:
Prepared and ready to rule, this judge doesn't bend to BS. Ours was an anti-SLAPP case and she's well-served in the law.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA3615
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She is nice enough but so are milk and cookies. Time for her to retire.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3426
Rating:10.0
Comments:
This judge is remarkably evenkeeled. She is smart yet willing to let both sides argue and is always open to a new argument. Good temperment and calls them as she sees them, her only inclination is to favor logic and reason. Nice personality too.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3145
Rating:3.0
Comments:
Have been waiting for this judge to read a default judgment package for 4 months now! Imagine trying to explain to your client who calls every other day demanding to know when he will get judgment, that 'the court has your papers but hasn't reviewed them yet.' This judge is kind of a nitwit.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2628
Rating:8.6
Comments:
She is a good judge, with a good feeling of justice. Can be quick on decisions, so you need to be prepared.
Very practical and helpful and understands practice problems. Would try another case with her in a heartbeat

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2462
Rating:1.5
Comments:
One of the worst judges in LASC. Tilts backwards to appease the big defense firms, contrary to the undisputed evidence. Does not understand basic employment law or trial evidence principles, no desire to learn. Makes up her mind about a case and rules accordingly on MSJs, MILs, trial relevancy objections, nonsuit motions, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Cannot articulate the reason for her decisions, because she never read the papers. Allowed D attorney to argue points of law not even briefed, then grants contrary to her tentative ruling against D, because "that sounds good to me." Would not allow P's presentation of supporting witnesses of management's overt discrimination, would not allow full-blown cross-exam of offending manager because "he stated everything he knew on direct," D attorney laughing all the way down the hall saying, "glad she's on our side."

Other

Comment #: CA1613
Rating:4.0
Comments:
I served as a juror on a case before this judge. My overall impression was that she was less intelligent than the lawyers. During one afternoon of testimony we watched as she dozed continually. I was hoping that one side or the other would raise an objection-would she know how to rule if she was startled awake? Haha, alas they let her doze the hours away.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1425
Rating:1.3
Comments:
Extremely biased and at times arrogant and very unpleasant. Ignores the law and at times makes up her own if it fits what she wants to do. After she does it, she tells the attorney to take a writ knowing that by the time the writ is ever considered, the issue is moot.
I have never in my 31 years of practice as an AV rated attorney had a worse judge.
I would 170.6 her every chance i get.

Other

Comment #: CA1239
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This Judge's rating is poor.

She loses moving papers personally delivered to her courtroom.
She doesn't read them either.

How does she get off by staying discovery against a Plaintiff and allowing 9 or more defendants to propound discovery when she assigned a trial date of more than 2 years away?

She threatened to have an attorney brought before the State Bar if he didn't withdrawn from a case. She allowed defendants to serve 50 sets of discovery on plaintiff and then threatened to allow defendant to be dismissed and sanction the lawyer after he had an illness.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1096
Rating:1.5
Comments:
Judge White does not read briefs, is completely unprepared when she takes the bench, and cannot articulate a basis for her rulings. She almost randomly chooses a winner or loser on motions, and is result oriented from the start of a case, regardless of the law or the facts. She should be avoided at all costs, and is an embarrassment to the bench. If you can't avoid her, be obsequious, because she likes extreme deference and compliments to her rulings. She can be manipulated easily if you

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA28
Rating:4.1
Comments:
My experience with her is when she was in San Pedro. She's downtown now. She's not as well versed in civil litigation as she thinks and can get easily flustered so as to make erroneous or unfair rulings. I once filed a motion that I knew was not well supported by case law, thinking that she might not understand the law and grant it anyway. She did.