Hon. Debre Katz Weintraub See Rating Details
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   5.4 - 12 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      

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)

What others have said about Hon. Debre Katz Weintraub



Comment #: CA8077
She is very pro-bank and financial institution, appears to be a people person but not really. Changes her ruling at the drop of a dime. Usually ask and depends on defense attorneys input to make her rulings, makes no sense at all.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7918
This woman is a dingbat. Not stupid, not particularly bright either -- just odd, dinghy, likes to be the center of attention in her courtroom, likes to raise her voice for no apparent reason, has an unusual habit of repeating the same words twice for no apparent reason other than dramatic effect. As others have said, her rulings are all over the lot. She takes the bench and then reads her [research attorney's] tentative ruling verbatim. That's it. You can point out the errors and inconsistencies in what she read, but you might as well save your breath. She's definitely a candidate for a 170.6 peremptory challenge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7602
Oral argument is an exercise in futility. She simply reads her tentative and will not engage in any discussion with counsel other than to say "it is all in my tentative" or words to that effect. Her rulings on our case were inconsistent with the law on more than one occasion and even left opposing counsel scratching his head. If you are looking for a level playing field, forget it. Her own personal biases seem to play a significant role in her rulings.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6995
I appeared before Judge Weintraub this morning for the first time. I found her style to be somewhat more formal than I am accustomed to, and, almost professorial, but, she was very cordial to all counsel who appeared before her this morning. She was very thorough in resolving the issues on her calendar. I look forward to appearing before her again in the future.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6348
Judge Weintraub is one of he best judges in the Los Angeles Superior Court. She has a fantastic judicial temperment. She is thorough and strives to get the right decision. 90% of the time she gets it. She cares about her job and it shows. She makes me proud to practice in the LASC. I hope she is appointed as an appellate Court judge or, better still, as a Federal Court Judge. She is a rare treasure and deserves the best.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6273
Was impressed with ability to communicate to everyone involved, including witnesses. Found her to be very fair, articulate and very intelligent/ quick to understand people, facts and law.

Court Staff

Comment #: CA5641
If there were less than one star available, I'd select that. Horrible to work for. Horrible.
Favors men. If you're a female attorney or court reporter going before her, good luck. And if you're a reporter, be prepared to sit in the gallery until she leaves the bench. No packing up until the court goes on a break.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5269
I think the best description I have heard of this judge is that her courtroom is a bit like Kabuki Theater. There are lots of dramatic moments where she appears to adopt the demeanor of a Judge Judy type of figure...but not as angry. She just will raise her voice at random times, almost for dramatic effect, and is a bit "avant-garde" in demeanor.

Her rulings are usually not entirely terrible, however, sometimes they simply do not make sense. For example, I saw her rule on a case where her decision on all of the causes of action is what was expected--except one cause of action where it was undisputed the statute of limitations had lapsed somehow survived. It definitely left everyone scratching their heads.

Despite her outward appearance of being strict, she is a massive push-over. I had one case with her that the counsel for co-defendants would laugh and refer to it as "the case that never dies" whenever we spoke about it, because it had literally gone on 2 years without an operative complaint. She would just let the Plaintiff (and his 4 different attorneys) have second chances, then third chances, then fourth chances, etc.

She is the type of judge who I can see intimidating attorneys because her demeanor is unnerving, but I highly doubt she ever sanctions parties, and if she can avoid making a final decision, she will. As was said below, her oral argument is a complete waste of time--she will let you argue, but does not appear to be listening.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA5101
Rating:Not Rated
Condescending and rude to reporters. Will not let you break down equipment until court takes break. Runs courtroom like a dictator.
Treats women extremely different from men.
As a reporter, if you have an issue, address her - do not ask parties to slow down nor not to speak over each other. Her courtroom, she's the boss, and she wants everyone in there to have eyes on her at all times and bow to her.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4915
She mishandled a complicated bad faith case. She took several weeks to address (full time) motions in limine, and got them wrong. She constantly changed her opinion, and let in evidence that a first-year law student would know would be prohibited, and kept trying to advise the plaintiff how to try the case. My client didn't get a fair trial, but, thankfully, the jury system still works! I would file a 170.6 if assigned to her again.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4824
Her temperament is very strange. She is very dramatic, sometimes causing you to think that she is yelling, but I think that she is just dramatic. Her tentatives are inconsistently well-researched, but it appears as if they were written by her research attorney. Your oral argument is literally a waste of time, because she appears to not be listening and will always stick with her tentative ruling, even if it is obvious that the ruling is incorrect. For example, I had an issue on demurrer where there was case law and statutory law saying the type of cause of action couldn't be heard in state court...and somehow it was overruled. (Almost every other ruling, however, was spot on.) She is also extremely deferential, and doesn't seem to like to make definitive rulings at all. Overall, she is not a bad judge, but don't waste your time with oral argument, because it is nothing more than a formality with her.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4733
She is unique, but once you understand that this is who she is, she is really quite pleasant and remarkably well prepared. She pays strict attention to what is happening during the trial, and gives the impression that she is involved and interested -- despite the fact that your case may be terribly boring. She has a sharp intellect and appears to be a very hard worker.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4683
She is both dumb and extremely unpleasant. I had a three-week civil trial before her. She is lazy, unable to process arguments and analysis on the fly, and screams a lot. She is incompetent and a disgrace to the bench. She is the worst judge that I have seen in my 21-year career.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4536
She screams at everyone, while thinking that she is being funny or something. She's not, though -- she's just really weird and unnerving. Her rulings are consistent with her personality: both terrible and inflexible. She belongs in the same class as Judge Kwan and Judge Sanchez-Gordon.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA4298
One appearance with the judge via Court Call. The first thing she does is scream at the Court Call operator. She takes the bench promptly and you better be ready. She has a short temper but does seem intelligent and OK to deal with if you have your stuff together.