Hon. Karen Moskowitz See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 3 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 3 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


Please type what you see below:

    

What others have said about Hon. Karen Moskowitz


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: CA46262
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This idiot cast off from Chatsworth court house should have been vetted a little better before Newsom unleashed her on the populace. She facilitates elder financial abuse even though we had the proper statues and a representative from Adult Protective services. Do u know what her response was? File bankruptcy. You will get no justice from this waste of human flesh unless you have a lawyer. If u can't afford one, don't even bother if she's the judge. Just cancel and try again.

Other

Comment #: CA45214
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Should not be a judge. If u don't have a law degree, she won't listen to you. She will even throw you out if you try to speak. Very rude and seems jaded. Nothing one would want on the bench.

Other

Comment #: CA42613
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Incompetent. Clearly this judge does not know what her job is, because if she did, she would not be a judge. Even given the maximum amount of discretion, there is no evidence to even vaguely support her decisions. Can you really award punitive damages for "alleged conduct" and completely ignore the glowing, pink elephant standing in the room holding neon letters shouting: "WHAT ABOUT ALL THE EVIDENCE PROVING FRAUD & FIDICIARY ABUSE?" "DO YOU THINK THAT A RESERVE STUDY REPORT SHOWING CURRENTLY A BANK ACCOUNT -2% FUNDED AND IN 5 YEARS THAT SAME RESERVE BANK ACCOUNT WILL BE -195% FUNDED, THAT'S NEGATIVELY UNDERFUNDED!) deserves consideration. Instead she expresses contempt that the person who controls this bank account had to "incur expenses for court appearances," the exorbitant expenses she had already paid herself. This person was neither the defendant in my SC-100, nor the plaintiff in the counter complaint, and did not have authorization to represent the real parties to the claim.
What is clear to me is that she is someone that is NOT compelled to do the right thing.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA41714
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Without a doubt one of the most unqualified judicial officers I have ever encountered. She is biased and makes up her own laws. A prime example is she has tried to deny interest at the legal rate of 10 per cent per annum as excessive when the California Statutes specifically provides "legal" interest is 10 per cent.

Litigant

Comment #: CA41577
Rating:1.0
Comments:
A fairly new judge and an absolute moron. Had a case with her and she could not remember how she ruled. 170.6 and don't waste a minute. Another horrible Chatsworth Courthouse Judge!! File your cases elsewhere.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA37103
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Moskowitz simply does not follow the law. She instead follows her feelings in any given case. She refuses to enter judgments pursuant to 664.6 based on written stip and even ruled that "too much notice" was provided with CCP 98 witness declaration. She is terrible. Automatic 170.6.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA33862
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Karen?
Thats an automatic 170.6.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA33859
Rating:1.0
Comments:
170.6