Hon. Theodore C Zayner See Rating Details
Superior Court
Santa Clara County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   9.3 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   3.0 - 4 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. Theodore C Zayner



Comment #: CA26244
I was most impressed with Judge Zayner's temperament and manners. He was almost 45 minutes to our 8:30 hearing, but he apologized and explained himself, which he certainly did not have to. He was empathetic and compassionate, listened well, was very polite, and very fair.


Comment #: CA20433
As a family court judge Zayner was actively dangerous to children, often denying requests to protect a child from a parent with a history of abuse. He showed the same White Man Bias that so many Santa Clara County judges have: a white man with the money for lawyer would win out over a woman, especially if she were self-represented every time. In one case involving a medically fragile child Zayner ruled the father - white man with a lawyer - was NOT required to follow the doctor's orders for the care of the child during the 2 days out of the year the father spent with child and the child suffered a permanent brain injury which was completely preventable. Theodore Zayner is unfit to be a judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA14468
One of the best judges in this county. Though a civil defense background and slight leaning, Judge Zayner is bright, wise and knows the ins and outs and practice of civil litigants. Model for other judges and will certainly receive more excellent ratings here with time. Btw, I have tried a case with him and he did not rule in my favor on a number of matters. This review isn't based on favoritism or rulings in my favor. He's just a damn good judge.


Comment #: CA14098
Erroneously treated an application to vacate a prefiling order as if it were a motion, complained that a respondent had not been noticed where the judicial council form clearly shows no space for that, violated canon 3D(2) with evidence of attorney misconduct and denied the application based on my 'repeated' claims that a prior order was void. The order in fact is void pursuant to FC 4065; no waiver of rights =void for lack of jurisdiction. Carlson v. Eassa. First amendment violation, truthful speech is protected speech.


Comment #: CA11869
Rating:Not Rated
Caught him in bad faith attempt to hide behind judicial immunity. Claimed a party needed to serve respondent in an application to vacate prefiling order when the judicial council form does not even have a space to name a respondent. ignores statutory and decisional law, violated Canon 3D (2_


Comment #: CA10246
Denied a request for an award of attorney fees under family code 2030 after previous law in motion found it was 'appropriate', ignored the requirements of the statute and the Elkins Task Force report. My ex had two attorneys. biased, either ignorant or defiant of the intent of the Legislature.