Hon. Teresa Sanchez-Gordon See Rating Details
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   2.5 - 8 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   - 0 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. Teresa Sanchez-Gordon


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA14615
She is hopefully gone now. She is one of those judges who will grant MSJ on a close case and take her chances with the Court of Appeals. Defense oriented and a real homer for the County and City of Los Angeles. Major goal in life is not getting it right, but clearing her docket.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA11742
Luckily she has retired from the bench. But I would never, ever hire her privately, much less stipulate to her should she come back as a temporary fill in judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA10915
Seems that this site is removing many of the more recent negative comments about this judge. I would join all those who have opined that this judge is awful and should not be on the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7746
I am really surprised by some of the negative comments about Judge Sanchez-Gordon. I've found her to be fair and thoughtful in law and motion. She certainly doesn't rate the low scores she has received, and considering the many disasters sitting as judges in Stanley Mosk, she deserves a glowing rating.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3265
One of the dumbest people I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. I can't imagine how she passed the Bar. Her musky perfume permeates the entire courtroom when she climbs out of her hole and her demeanor is simply awful. She's also cross-eyed and possibly a mouth-breather.

She granted a demurrer without leave to amend on an obvious discrimination claim,forcing a needless appeal. Even the defense attorney couldn't believe it!

On another very complicated case, she set a trial date 8 months out and demanded that the case be settled. The same day, she granted two other demurrers without leave. She looks like she just wants to clear her calender.

She's a complete and total nebish and has absolutely NO business sitting on the bench. Anything more complicated than a simple rear-end accident goes entirely over her head. There needs to be some judicial oversight of these people, otherwise any moron with a robe can get a courtroom and start making rulings.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2991
Rating:Not Rated
The worst thing about this judge is her staff. The last time I was in this department, there was an African American female clerk and another female courtroom attendant. The clerk is one of the most miserable, condescending clerks in Central (and if you're an attorney, you know that's saying something). The courtroom attendant is also, like most attendants, a horrible human being, who hates lawyers just as much as she hates her own life (by the way, Courtroom attendants and clerks: it's not our fault you hate your job and life in general. It's your fault. Don't get all angry with attorneys just because you're upset you have to witness successful people every day who actually take pride in their work and are actually joyful.).

I once had my answer stricken as a defendant in this department because I failed to show up to a hearing. The hearing I missed was supposed to be noticed by the plaintiff's counsel. Because this was one of those BS foreclosure cases, handled by the bottom feeders who work in the plaintiff's side of these cases, I did not get notice. I had to get a declaration from the plaintiff to ultimately get the order set aside.

Apart from all this, Gordon is just so rude on the bench. Just as unhappy and miserable as her female staff.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA2988
Bent over backwards in favor of Hispanic-owned defendant employer corporation in vey viable wrongful termination case. Granted summary judgment in favor of employer as "unopposed" after she struck P employee's 3 separate oppositions because P's P&As contained citation references to the evidence, references she insisted be exclusively in the Sep. Statement. Imagine that, a lawyer referencing evidence in the MSJ Opp. P&As! Imagine striking 3 separately prepared, well-reasoned oppositions then having the audacity to treat the employer's motion as "unopposed." There was little transparency as to what she was REALLY doing, wink, wink, then actually having the gaul to do it with a straight face under the guise she was being fair and impartial. Just the opposite. DOES NOT BELONG ON THE BENCH.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA1238
Appeared recently re a discovery motion. Moving papers were defective for a number of reasons, including invalid notice. Should have resulted in cursory denial. Instead, Judge ignored valid objections. Despite the fact that the Motion was granted only in part monetary sanctions were imposed against my office and my client.

Also, as to demurrers, Judge practically treats them as summary judgment motions. Forget notice pleading. Level of fact pleading required is outrageous.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA379
She has a big ego and maintains a regal demeanor on the bench. Don't agree to a voluntary settlement conference with her; she's not above taking what you tell her in confidence during settlement talks, and using it in open court to threaten your client. Not flexible as to scheduling and generally a nasty person.