Hon. Jacqueline M. Stern See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
San Diego County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   3.2 - 13 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 5 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. Jacqueline M. Stern


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: CA5769
Rating:1.0
Comments:
All previous comments are too soft on Judge Stern. I had to call her "Your Honor," but I couldn't because she doesn't have any honor. She'd rather be called "Your Bonor." According to the Urban Dictionary, "Bonor is the stuff that comes out of the ear after someone has sex with it. A pale yellow combination of semen and ear wax." That Stern really needs to unplug her ears and have ear wax out when she listens to pro per litigants.

Other

Comment #: CA5208
Rating:1.0
Comments:
We believe it was a mistake for the San Diego County Bar to rate Judge Jacqueline Stern as "qualified." In our eyes, she has not been objective, she is not well prepared, she lacks a calm, judicious temperament, she nullifies juries decisions, as the trier of fact, she is not objective and unbiased.

In Stern's case, justice is anything but blind. Her political leanings toward governmental hierarchies are obvious to anyone sitting in on a hearing in her courtroom. She appears to be more respectful if a jury is involved, as she "plays to her audience," but she has no problem in arbitrarily deciding to overrule the jury's carefully thought out decision!

We absolutely will be voting against Judge Jacqueline Stern and FOR Joseph Adelizzi. We sincerely hope we can vote both Judge Lisa Schall and Judge Jacqueline Stern out of office.

Other

Comment #: CA5198
Rating:1.0
Comments:
From San Diego City Beat: "Our June 3 primary election endorsements"

"Last August, Stern overturned a jury verdict that awarded $1.5 million to a woman who'd been sexually harassed by an Oceanside police officer. She found the award "exorbitant," but instead of lowering it, she nixed it entirely, saying that she found the plaintiff to be "not credible" though the officer admitted to—and was fired for—his behavior. Stern overturned another jury ruling in 2009, an action that was ultimately reversed by an appeals court. Though it doesn't happen often, judges have the right to amend or overturn a jury verdict. But to base that decision partly on a witness' credibility, especially when it's a victim of sexual harassment, troubles us. Because of this, we're supporting Adelizzi."

We agree completely, and are asking all our friends to vote for Adelizzi and against Jacqueline Stern. Judge Stern seems incapable of being fair and even-handed. She plays God and thinks nothing of nullifying a jury's decision, and taking it upon herself to become the trier of fact. We too have seen litigants leave in tears because of Stern's mistreatment of them. Stern favors public agencies and has a real bias against "the little guy." She just seems to make it up as she goes along, and doesn't appear to have read the briefings filed by in pro se litigants. She has a definite prejudice against anyone trying to represent themselves, no matter to what lengths they may go to comply with all the rules. Stern doesn't have a good understanding of ethics, integrity or the rules of jurisprudence. Please vote her out of office!

Other

Comment #: CA5131
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Hi-If you'd like to elaborate on your comment regarding Judge Stern, Weightier Matter (http://www.weightiermatter.com) is preparing a profile from these posts on The Robing Room, other websites, the Commission on Judicial Performance complaints, and numerous personal accounts for the June 3, 2014 election. Please reply here or to the email below if you would like to participate.

Thank you.

Cole Stuart
cole.stuart@lexevia.com

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA4999
Rating:1.1
Comments:
Judge Stern is not open and objective. Justice is not blind in her court. She does mistreat pro se defendants, and has shown great favoritism towards public agency plaintiffs, in addition to her extreme prejudice against pro se defendants. If you are assigned her as a judge, immediately request another!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4464
Rating:4.1
Comments:
Judge Stern does not seem to want to make decisions. She lets in settlement negotiations, assumes litigants will "figure things out between themselves," and won't make a call. She is generally a sweet woman, but not a good judge.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA4303
Rating:1.1
Comments:
Judge Stern is one of the worst judges on the bench. She violated our rights of due process by reopening discovery, on the eve of trial, after the previous Judge, Lisa Schall, recused herself in a prejudicial order, which was rife with false statements about my husband and I verbally accosting her, when she appeared, without notice, at my deposition at Encinitas City Hall. That was another judge, but apparently, they conspired to reopen discovery. I had to act as my own attorney, and was not aware that I had to ask Judge Stern to recuse herself, immediately. Before we had arrived in the courtroom, before our initial hearing before Judge Stern, she already re-opened discovery, allowing the City to name expert witnesses and do unwanted inspections. We agreed to allow the inspection on the eve of trial, under protest, that the inspector was not expert, and that he brought no paperwork. We had a witness that made and submitted an affidavit that we did allow the inspector in. But when I said that his inspection was made under protest, the inspector left, and the City Attorney wrote out a sworn statement for the so-called "expert" private inspector to sign, stating that we had harassed him and had sent a fax (my written objections to his qualifications and to his inspecting our home against our wishes) to his place of employment. The City Attorney had given us his employer's address and phone number as part of the expert witness declaration. But the inspector, Joseph Romeo, later said it was to be a side job, and not through his employer, through his dec. He never appeared in court. Judge Stern found us to be in contempt of court and struck our answer. She later awarded the City nearly $95,000 against us, for its attorney fees, when the lawsuit had been brought in the name of the People of the State of California ex rel City Attorney Glenn Sabine. Judge Stern appears to be a vindictive, unfair, and hateful woman. When we did ask her to recuse herself, with cause, rather than answering under oath, that she was not prejudiced against us (by Judge Schall's order, or by her resenting that we were low-income, self-represented litigants), Judge Stern struck our motion for recusal with cause. She has been awful for many, many cases. I would recommend anyone who is assigned her as a judge to automatically ask for a different judge. She's horrible!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4153
Rating:2.2
Comments:
Judge Stern and her clerks seem to go out of their way to impede the civil litigation process. We have seen in our own cases and other cases her denial of justice to civil litigants and serious misapplication of law. She recently set aside a seemingly well-founded jury verdict in a sexual harassment case based upon her evaluation of the credibility of a witness, as a matter of clear case law this is the province of the jury, not the judge. We CCP 170.6 her as a rule, and we think that she should very seriously consider retiring as a judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3860
Rating:1.8
Comments:
Mean, angry, abusive, disrespectful, misapplies the law. Need I go on?

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3656
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Her actions indicate she does not know what she is doing and she seems to lie. She will rule in favor of anyone with a lawyer, even if the Pro Se's evidence is rock solid in their favor. Not really a judge - more like a puppet.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3264
Rating:2.4
Comments:
This judge has NO ability to reason and apply concepts of the law. If there is not a case exactly like what she has to decide, she can't think on her own. She says "the law" says things that is simply does not. She doesn't understand the evidence code either. RUN!!!

Litigant

Comment #: CA3075
Rating:1.0
Comments:
The fact is, she makes rulings without reading or comprehending the complaint or answer before a hearing (on two occasions) gives rise to her abuse of judicial power and she should be held accountable for these grevious errors in procedure. Because fundamentally, her behavior denies the litigant the right to due process and equitable justice in her courtroom.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2955
Rating:2.5
Comments:
I have witnessed her inability to grasp easy legal concepts during both a motion to tax costs and a motion for new trial, while I was observing other cases in her courtroom. Based on these incidents, and other anecdotes, I refuse to have her preside on any of my cases. We can do much better.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2929
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Have had Judge Stern in 3 bench trials and one jury. She can be curt as the trier of fact, but she generally -- though in one glaring instance did not -- gets the law right. She does her own research if needed; bring your annotated CACI to trial; she'll listen to your argument if you can give her the rule and a cite. As a jury judge, could not have been sweeter in front of the jury. She was directive in sidebar, but not belligerent or condescending. I prefer her as a jury judge.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA2928
Rating:1.4
Comments:
an abusive, ill tempered, sullen, woman.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2686
Rating:4.6
Comments:
It has been some years since I have appeared before Judge Stern, but it was a very negative experience. As someone noted, she calendars differently than every other Court or human being, so that she will tell you your notice was untimely - even though opposing counsel doesn't complain - since it was timely. She will not take steps to get discovery problems in order, but will make arbitrary decisions - such as sanctioning counsel for inadequate responses "because the code says I have to" despite being told she has discretion. I would paper her.

Other

Comment #: CA2608
Rating:1.0
Comments:
she is a judge judy wanna be.she was decided with prejudiced with out hearing one word from our side an courts did not contact our side.so big time ponsie criminal purjerd an got away the will be getting you soon mrs stern is a accomplice

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1241
Rating:9.0
Comments:
I think most of the poor reviews about Judge Stern are misinformed. She will apply the law as it is stated, but if you come in acting like her decision is a foregone conclusion, you will not be helping your client. Also, don't waste her time with alpha male battles against opposing counsel. Stick to the facts, emphasize how the policy of the law supports your case and stand firm.

One other thing, is that if you are serving a motion by regular mail make sure that you calculate your deadline by starting with the filing date and counting 16 court days forward, and then another 5 calendar days forward from the 16th court day.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1122
Rating:7.3
Comments:
Judge Stern is all business. She can be cold and nit picky. That said, this is not a result-oriented judge. If the law says you should win, she will side with you. She doesn't get side tracked on minor issues or passionate, but unsupported arguments.

Her motion calendar is seriously backlogged. It can take 4 months to get a simple motion heard, and she does not like trial continuances. Plan accordingly.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA75
Rating:1.3
Comments:
We challenged Judge Stern and she kept our case without taking all the proper steps according to court rules. This has caused excessive litigation expense for no reason. Numerous motions and an appeal.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA38
Rating:2.4
Comments:
I have seen people leaving her courtroom in tears after being mistreated by her. Needs a class in judicial decorum to start with.