Hon. Luis A. Rodriguez See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Orange County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   6.2 - 3 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 6 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. Luis A. Rodriguez


Comments


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA4489
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Corruption has unveiled its fine group of powerful community politicians, attorneys, city managers, mayors and council members, etc. We the people expect to have an equal and fair opportunity to be heard in a court of law, and when that equal opportunity is no longer available, it is time to, not consider, but to immediately demand a 170.6 for violating the rules and procedures that you've taken an oath to follow. The U.S. Constitution can not be ignored -- this country was founded by rights that were written to protect all citizens. Sir, it is time for you to recuse yourself from the bench, as your actions are blatant and injurious. Your public service is tainted with evil and distrust. We the people must not allow this type of behavior in our justice system. Recuse yourself immediately from the bench!

Other

Comment #: CA4474
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge is prejudiced. He is easily swayed in favor of the banks and their successors. What is bothersome about this judge is that he is blatantly violates rules and procedures. In fact, watch how he scans into the gallery to see the response of the crowd or individuals attached to the case. We have witnessed the unethical behavior of an elected judge that is destroying the integrity of the justice system. There will be no justice with this judge sitting on the bench. It is obvious that he's been paid off, all the while bringing shame upon the County of Orange and the Superior Courthouse of Santa Ana. For almost five years, a particular real estate fraud/criminal case has not been allowed to go to trial within the 5-year statute of limitations. Now it is predicted that he will attempt bogus sanctions and arrange the dismissal of the case. This judge is willfully destroying this case. 170.6 this judge immediately.

Litigant

Comment #: CA4459
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I was very disappointed in this judge. His academic and professional background led me to believe that he would be diligent in his duties in all areas, but it is clear that he favors creditors and should not be allowed to preside over civil matters. Judges who rule on emotional matters from chambers are cowards unworthy of the robe. This man earns over $170,000 per year, and if he doesn't have the temerity to rule against parties to their face, he needs to take off the robe and go back to the little pansy room. His lack of professionalism is an affront to human decency. Judges may think it's "cute" to rule from chambers, but homeowners don't like it. Perhaps he feels that "deadbeat homeowners" don't matter, since they aren't paying his salary, which leads me to conclude that he is a bought-and-paid-for judge.

Other

Comment #: CA4455
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Obviously a tool of the corrupt criminal cartel -- justice delayed is justice denied.

Other

Comment #: CA4451
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Both parties were not present, and he ruled in favor of the absent party. We cannot help but wonder if there was an ex parte communication. His integrity and the integrity of the position that he holds come into question when we hear of ruling such as this one.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA4450
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
He showed bias and dishonored his position by not finding for the party that showed up. Was there ex parte communication?

Litigant

Comment #: CA4449
Rating:1.0
Comments:
It is clearly unjust (and hopefully illegal) to render judgement against an appellant, where the defendant does not appear, and the judge does not appear in court, to hear the merits of the appeal! This judge has no place in the justice system of the U.S.!

Other

Comment #: CA4448
Rating:1.0
Comments:
It is evident that the court is working for the bank. In any other situation (criminal, probate or civil) not related to banks, judges can be fair. But with issues concerning the crimes of banks (e.g., securities fraud), judges seem to think that the general public are dead! This is not the case. It is hard to ignore public crimes, and wrong to not give this homeowner due process --especially for the obvious felony crimes of bank people.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4447
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Thank God I am not in California with this judge who doesn't even come out of his chambers, and rules in favor of the banksters, who don't even show up! Obviously he has had way too much bank bologna, and couldn't waddle out to the bench!

Other

Comment #: CA4445
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
A disgusting display of cowardice.

Other

Comment #: CA4444
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge made a ruling today without coming out of chambers, and against a homeowner who has been fighting the fraud for years (and we know it is all fraud). With a courtroom full of attorneys, he obviously did not want them to hear the biased ruling, one that was against the homeowner (and the bank was even a no-show!). The judge stayed in chambers, and the bank didn't show, and Judge Rodriguez screwed the homeowner. He must be removed! 170.6 this judge! We need honesty, not corruption!

Litigant

Comment #: CA3346
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Judge Rodriguez is willing to ignore the law in order to help the side that he favors.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3339
Rating:8.4
Comments:
Judge Rodriguez is fair, understanding and properly applies the law without getting too hung up on technicalities. Judge Rodriguez gets it. He is an asset the the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3177
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge intentionally disregarded the law and the facts in order to "send a message" on a $250,000 fee motion. I would 170.6 this judge always.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2969
Rating:9.3
Comments:
He's a fine judge, fair and sensible, and with a good understanding of the lives and situations of the people who come before him.