Hon. John H. Sugiyama See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Contra Costa County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   10.0 - 1 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. John H. Sugiyama


Comments


Other

Comment #: CA9893
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Sugiyama terminated my parental rights ruling that I abandoned my daughter after he kept my case in his courtroom (probate) for 6 years. No charges of abuse or neglect. No investigation done by DCFS. The first three years I had professionally supervised visitation until he suspended it. I went before him 4x to request reinstatement of professionally supervised visitation. The last time he slapped two thousand dollars in sanctions against me. I also requested a transfer to Dependency Court several times - he refused and sanctioned my attorney. [Redacted by Editor]This attorney served over two hundred orders to take judicial notice before my TPR trial. She was also allowed to petition the court for an additional $191,000. from me. This in addition to what the Criminal Conflicts Program paid to her. [Redacted]

Litigant

Comment #: CA9881
Rating:1.0
Comments:
John H. Sugiyama. There is CA probate code.
There are things like the constitutional right to raise your own children without the interference of the government - I believe it's listed somewhere within your parental rights? You may read statements such as "the court takes termination of ones parental rights very seriously". What you experience in front of this judge will never align with the rights you once believed you were afforded as a citizen of this country and its judicial system and there isn't anything you can do about it. I will never be able to go back to the life I had before this judge destroyed it. I will never be able to wake up in the morning carefree. Not only has he redefined me, he has redefined my life. My relationship with my only child was trivialized to the point of non existence. He gave away my motherhood, my child, my integrity and my self esteem. Everyday I think about what it would be like if I had my baby. Her voice echoes through my mind - I miss her so much. Why me? I'm finding it harder and harder to accept the fact that I'm never going to be a mother to my child. The thought of it is absolutely devastating.

Other

Comment #: CA9603
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Sugiyama has covered and protected Robert J Hooy (Hooy & Hooy PLC, Concord), although Hooy has deliberately and blatantly committed malpractice in dealing with a probate case!!!
WHY do you do that, Mr Sugiyama? Does that satisfy you?
YOU have put on a shameful and unjust performance and YOU KNOW IT!

Other

Comment #: CA8844
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Does not rule objectively!
Does ignore the truth!
Shields malpractice of greedy probate lawyers!
Acts as if he is Kamehameha!
I hope he is a better father than judge!

Other

Comment #: CA7462
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Sugiyama explained his decision-making is based on his reluctance on making decisions for the parents reguarding their child. I am confused as to what his function in the court is.

Litigant

Comment #: CA7409
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Mr Sugiyama does not rule according to the law, favors avaricious probate lawyers such as Robert Hooy (Concord) and David Little (Hand & Little, Oakland), covers unjust and malevolent practitioners of law. SHAME on CC Department 14 !
A shame he is a Cal graduate !

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA6878
Rating:10.0
Comments:
One of the fairest judges I have every appeared in front of. He also explains his rulings. He is fair to both sides, he listens, and he is patient. He is a keeper. Appellate Court or California Supreme Court?

Other

Comment #: CA4769
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This judge and his court have outlived their purpose. This court is not competent, and has forgotten the true purpose of the law and the courts.

Other

Comment #: CA4362
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
In the guardianship case of minor child A.Z., this judge allowed the child's attorney J. C. W. to decide on the child's visitation with family members who are concerned about the child. Attorney J.C.W. submitted documentation that he has not spoken with the child in over a year and a half. The child is not being represented in our courts in the way that the law intended, and this judge is allowing court-appointed attorneys to represent this minor child in court, even when they have not spoken to the the child and obviously do not have a client-attorney relationship. This is court child abuse and neglect.

Other

Comment #: CA4293
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge is unfamiliar with the cases in front of him. He has a lack of compassion for guardianship cases. He shows no concern for children who want to continue relationships with ex-guardians and extended family members.