Hon. Cynthia Ann Ludvigsen See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
San Bernardino County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   2.1 - 7 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. Cynthia Ann Ludvigsen


Comments


Other

Comment #: CA9496
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Rude, condescending, biased, ill-prepared, unprofessional, does not read reports prior to hearings, blames others for her errors, yells, screams, vilifies, embarrasses, mocks, and makes decisions based on absolutely nothing. So WHY is she still a judge?!? She needs to be fired AND held accountable for every bad order that she has issued!

Other

Comment #: CA8687
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Horrible, very biased towards her won agenda, she doesnt have the parties involved best interests in mind and makes her decisions based clearly on the size of teh chip on her shoulder.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA8432
Rating:4.8
Comments:
(1) Since 2008, she's handled a probate calendar (conservatorships, guardianships, trusts - like divorce, with death involved). (2) never appear by court call, go. Very facially expressive, which you may need to know to understand. (3) Cares greatly about notice (a real probate issue). (4) Does get on people, including lawyers, more so than needed, but oftimes because they don't listen or hear her message (sometimes she is hard to understand (5) Actually cares about protecting elders (6) biggest negative is she appears to jump to early conclusion, so if you have a superficial bad case with good true underlying facts, you may have a real problem with her that will be hard to fix at trial. Used to 170.6 her routinely, now-if elder protection is needed (conservatorship, etc)-will not do so (even prefer her to the other probate judges who keep turning over).

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA8388
Rating:1.0
Comments:
8 years ago, I encountered a bench officer so unqualified that she basically retired early to avoid involuntary removal. Judge Ludvigsen isn't as terrible as that officer, but I can't say anything good about her ability to run the court. Some judges care, whereas others don't, and Judge Ludvigsen doesn't care; when contending with peoples' lives, that's unacceptable. If she's on your case, I strongly recommend using your peremptory strike.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA8117
Rating:2.4
Comments:
She gets irate over the smallest things. She is rude to attorneys and pro per litigants. She has a couple of favorite attorneys that can do no wrong and all others are unable to do the right thing. She is harder on women attorneys than on men and especially hard on younger attorneys. My firm has now taken to papering her at every turn. This is difficult because there are only 2.5 judges in the county.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7737
Rating:1.4
Comments:
One of the worst judicial temperaments I have encountered on the bench. Everyone, other than a few select attorneys that she apparently knows personally, are treated rudely and without any interest in the truth. She is routinely uninformed, unprepared and blatantly biased. It is unfortunate that she is on the bench.

Other

Comment #: CA7522
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Horrible...no regard for the truth or due process. Your only hope is to have a lawyer who resides in her favor at the moment. Should be retired....

Litigant

Comment #: CA6707
Rating:1.0
Comments:
She is a horrible judge. Our family is going through conservatorship our younger sister. We presented evidence of elderly abuse to our mother by our younger sister to the assigned attorney of our mother. We have provided the court with solid evidence that is dated and recorded by several departments. It appears that they don't care about honest truth. She turns and lashes at us assuming immediately as if the slander was true, she's HORRIBLE its disgusting just to set foot in that court.

Other

Comment #: CA5863
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Judge Ludvigsen appears overwhelmed, even at the start of the day. She acknowledges she does not have the time to review the cases assigned to her. But instead of gaining time with short, efficient rulings, she rambles on and whines about irrelevant matter not pertainent to the issue.

She showed a clear preference for specific attorneys, even if they were poorly prepared, unorganized, and rambling in their pleadings.

She is disrepectful to pro per petitioners. In one instance, she misquoted the local rules and when this was brought to her attention, she changed did not correct her ruling but changed the topic to another issue.

It is a shame she represents the California Superior Court system as there are plenty of hard-working, prepared and thougtful judges out there.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5811
Rating:1.0
Comments:
My father's civil rights has been taken away, because of this judge's bad behavior. She makes me want to leave this country, because I am ashamed of her rudeness to my family, me, and others in her court.

Other

Comment #: CA5767
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I've never had to deal with the court system before and after my experience with this judge I hope that I never have to again.She made it obvious with her demeanor that she didn't care what the evidence for the case was. Her attitude towards the attorneys that were her obvious favorite attorney and the other attorneys was black and white, and I was unlucky enough to have an attorney that wasn't one of her favorites.It was horrible! I hope that I never have to go in front of a judge again, but if I do,I will do everything I can to make sure that it isn't Judge Ludvigsen. I really do hope that our court system as a whole is more interested in the facts and the law than this judge is.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5085
Rating:2.1
Comments:
Dumber than . . . . Very biased in favor of certain "regularly appearing" attorneys. Tolerant of perjury. Poor knowledge of law. Rude to parties without lawyers. Use C.C.P. 170.6 if
you are a male attorney or a disabled
party.

Other

Comment #: CA3354
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Terrible. She does not read evidence presented to her. Bad attitude and temper. Acts as she is over whelmed. If your case gets assigned to this judge as for a different judge.

Other

Comment #: CA3269
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Terrible doesn't care to read evidence presented to her and form her own opinion, will believe anything she is told by the side she supports and willing to dicredit anthing that supports a party that she is prejudiced against.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3044
Rating:2.3
Comments:
No regard for nominal due process or procedure. Rampant chronyism with favorite lawyers, and total disregard for opposing presentataions or evidence.