Hon. Thomas S. Garza See Rating Details
Superior Court
San Bernardino County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   4.1 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   2.0 - 1 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      

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)

Please type what you see below:


What others have said about Hon. Thomas S. Garza


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6196
The plaintiff testified to an out of court statement not made by the plaintiff as to mediation. I objected to the statement as heresay and against public policy.

Judge responded: overruled, plaintiff has personal knowledge.

I asked to be heard and he refused.


Comment #: CA5668
Judge Thomas Garza failed abide by the legal requirements for the appointment of a discovery referee: Statutory Authority, Specifically Code of Civil Procedures 639, which sets forth the legal requirements and findings that a judge must make before requiring any party to spend or borrow money for the payment of a discovery referee, for the purpose of the plaintiff obtaining documents for deposition which had previously been ordered to be turned over to the plaintiff's attorney. Rather then order the defendants attorneys to comply to his previous orders to turn over documents, Judge Garza on his own motion and without a written order or exceptional circumstance's, refused to accept a fee wavier from an indigent plaintiff, and then ordered the plaintiff to split the cost of a discovery referee at the cost of $200-$300 an hour with the affluent defendant. All along while failing to acknowledge the indigent plaintiffs ability to pay and proceed with litigation against the affluent defendant thus barring the plaintiff meaningful access to the courts. What this judge should have done was to order the affluent defendants to produce all documents for deposition as per his previous order and order monetary sanctions against the affluent defendants for their failure to follow a courts order.