Hon. Cecilia P. Castellanos See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Alameda County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   2.5 - 2 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 2 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. Cecilia P. Castellanos


Comments


Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA3256
Rating:1.0
Comments:
After comments, I wanted to make sure the ratings were submitted.

Other

Comment #: CA3255
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Castellanos has not cooperated with our case since OCTOBER, 2012. After each request for paperwork, she asks for MORE and keeps setting ANOTHER hearing date.
Now, all she is asking for is TWO papers which our attorney wanted to hand-deliver and was told there has to be a hearing.
The sale of a house has been pending since July, 2012, and the proceeds need to finance a care facility for a member of the family.
The attorney has to QUOTE codes to the examiner which she, in turn, tells the judge and then agrees and asks for more.
The attorney can NOT talk to the judge.
How unprofessional!

Other

Comment #: CA2863
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I appear before her at least 5-10 times a month. She has an excellent temperament, but very fair, respectful and even handed in dealing with everyone unless you want to be a jerk. Then she will put you in your place in a nice firm manner.
Particularly impressed by her attitude towards all, especially one day the power was out in the building, She came out with her staff to the front of the building, apologized and explained to all that all cases were being continued to another day. She is very human. Best probate judge in my 11 years there.

Other

Comment #: CA2406
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I didn't care for her with how she completely ignored the respondent in a case. His statement appeared to the others in the court room to be more plausible and believable. He had pictures showing his injuries and she didn't and the judge took her word over physical evidence. She also, i found out later, violated the rules of the court and the state codes when evidence was introduced by the girl but the guy was not given the chance to look at what she filed with the court. Very one sided very bias

Other

Comment #: CA2405
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I didn't care for her with how she completely ignored the respondent in a case. His statement appeared to the others in the court room to be more plausible and believable. He had pictures showing his injuries and she didn't and the judge took her word over physical evidence. She also, i found out later, violated the rules of the court and the state codes when evidence was introduced by the girl but the guy was not given the chance to look at what she filed with the court. Very one sided very bias