Comment #: CA40705
Rating:10.0
Comments:
I had a civil jury trial with her. I found her to listen to both sides and try and get things right. She called "balls and strikes" when it came to objections. I think the jurors enjoyed being in her courtroom.

I think she is a nice edition to the civil judges in SB. Much like the other judges, she will let you try your case and not get involved. She does handle her courtroom a little different but honestly, I actually like it better.

Comment #: CA34705
Rating:1.8
Comments:
Labor Commissioner Appeal was scheduled for trial, Covid hit, everything delayed for months. Trial date finally set. Employee had moved to OK. On day of trial, without any prior announcement, the judge changed trial into a trial setting conference and issued orders for submission of trial documents by each side prior to rescheduled new trial date. Judge declined request for Plaintiff to appear remotely via Zoom/Webex because Defendant objected. More below. Seem to recall some comment about not knowing much about the law in this area, but vague. Seemed to favor Defense. Request to continue case from Oct. 2020 to Feb. 2021 denied, again Defense objected. Set trial just before Christmas for client to come from OK. One week before trial, Defense asked for a continuance b/c defendant came down with Covid. ......... Dealing with SBC is like going back to carbon paper or Judge Roy Bean. No electronic filing, bad case access on internet, no remote appearances by parties or witnesses, widespread disbelief in the dangers of Covid, requiring jurors, parties, counsel to congregate in hallways. Many errors in posted minute orders on internet (attorney listed as representing opposite party), judges change without notice to counsel or parties. If you want a remote appearance, you have to provide your own equipment and it has to be compatible with the courtroom set up.
Much of this is not this judge's fault, but she isn't making her courtroom user friendly either. FOR COUNSEL- Expect to have to prepare detailed briefs explaining the law from the first step to the last. IMO the Judge is diligent enough but has little expertise outside the area she practiced in before moving to the bench.

Comment #: CA13509
Rating:2.0
Comments:
I think she failed her job by being a judge by favoring female.Despite of lack of credible evidence or documentation from the female, she would rule in favor of her and ignored all evidence provided by the male. She presumes all females are weak and needs support, which are not always the case. In fact, a lot of women are hiding money then crying poor. I wished I had known this before being stuck in her courtroom. GET OUT OF HER COURTROOM AS FAST AS YOU CAN IF YOU ARE A MAN.

Comment #: CA11809
Rating:1.0
Comments:
From the onset, this "judge" it clear that one specific case was more important than the other cases before her. She rushed through them only listening to the women, not the men. She would say "case closed" but if the woman cried, she would continue discussion and make changes. "Case Closed" was mentioned three times and she continued to change in favor of the female not giving any response time to the male. It's clear this judge is a feminist and only interested in representing the wife / the mother / the female. Sad thing is she took information the female gave as truth and gave her final orders without hearing from the man. She is 100% biased for women. I'll be sure to remind the children in my friends case that a female judge took them away from their father after their mother povideded false testimony and offered pictures that were not related to the case. What the mother did not say is that she works with high risk children who lash out and hurt her at work. One child bite her on the arm and she will be on medication for the rest of her life. But pictures of that incident with that child was presented against the father as evidence he abused her. Shame on this woman who calls herself a judge. She's not interested in hearing the truth or being fair. And when is lifetime alimony a fair decision for a 7 year marriage where both parents income is almost the same? What this does is provides an environment where a female can live with someone without getting married just so she can collect alimony for the rest of her life. What was the point of going to a mediator if the judge is going to change everything that had already been agreed upon. What the judge didn't hear is that the father's employment is seasonal and that his last paystub is not a true representation of his annual income or that this year we are supposed to have a much harsher winter (he can't work when it rains). She didn't want to hear from him. So leaving court he knows he will be in contempt of court each month he's out of work because the child support order was more than he can afford. In essence, the father will be paying the mother's apt rent and new car payment every month. We'll see how much of that money goes toward the children. Shame on this "judge". There was no attempt at fairness. She made it clear that she was in a hurry to get to this important other case. In fact, two issued in the paperwork were never discussed. They were not discussed and they are not in the minutes.