Comment #: CA3800
Rating:1.7
Comments:
this judge did not allow all our evidence. Ignored questions from the jury. Ignored questions from us. Made more exceptions with the defendants. Looked disinterested in our case. Was not up on this type of case law. We were rushed to get done. When jury came back with a contradicting verdict to the questions. One juror said he didn't understand the questions. All defendants were quilty of negligence but said we were not harmed.
Real estate non disclosure was proven but we got nothing. Instead we have to pay legal fees to the defendants that screwed us. NO JUSTICE

Comment #: CA2890
Rating:2.3
Comments:
Dahquist is clearly insurance defense biased.He comes from Latham & Watkins, the defense side.He is passive agressive.If you disagree with his "suggestions" he will try to punnish the litigant.
He fails to firmly rule on Motions in Limine, and allows the defense to ask questions in front of the jury that Can not be unrung,like irelevant personal questions about the plaintiff that invade the right of privacy and are not in issue in the case.All in violation of Hallendorf v Superior Court 85 Cal App 3d 553, and Britt v Superior Court 20 Cal 3d 844.
He prejudges the case & value, then tries to limit the case damages & medical experts to conform with his predetermined view of it before and during the trial.
He allows repeated depostions of witnesses,driving up the cost of litgation.
Importantly, he will side with the insurance co on legal rulings so as to avoid an appeal and force finality of a case.He wants the case done and will fail to follow the law to avoid a defense appeal even if it damages the plaintiff.
During a trial he will try to limit the the plaintiffs experts from critisizing the defense experts,so you fail to get milage out of your own expert when comparing experts opinions.
He will also try to set a negative tone towards the plaintiffs attorney and scold the plaintiffs lawyer in front of the jury,but not the defense lawyer.
He refuses to hold side bars on important issues.
He is afraid to make a firm ruling,and instead feigns that he is willing to listen only to use the newly gleaned information against you.He never changes his tenative rulings.
His reaeach attorney, Megan Teague will call & scream on the phone as to motions.She is irratic and will also gloat at her detrimental tenative rulings."So how did you you like my tenative ruling",like she is punishing you.He is poor on voir dire and soes not relate to people well,so attorneys get some lattitude on Voir dire..I am told he is Mormon. Avoid this Judge if you are a plaintiff.

Comment #: CA2600
Rating:1.6
Comments:
When asked for settlement discussions, he said he would not demand it, but if the other side wanted to, it was up to them. Any judge I have ever dealt with has always recommended settlement discussion, unbelievable!! He had his mind made up prior to a hearing, almost like he was paid off prior to, corruption is high within the court system! Sad that we live in a country that has lost site of justice for all, not justice for who the judge chooses because of a pre determined bias!!

Comment #: CA2569
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Biased, Biased, Biased...he does the court a huge diservice and worst does not allow true justice for all!!

Comment #: CA2475
Rating:1.1
Comments:
This is the first, and hopefully last, I will ever have to comment negatively on a judge. Unfortunately this judge displayed a bias and demeanor against my client and I throughout the trial that I have never experienced and I have practicd in all California Federal Courts and various courts from San Diego to Siskiyou and Mendecino counties, and I have never having seen any thing like this. He was clearly out of his element and his uttter failure to understand the rules of evidence is the most shocking I have ever expereinced. At times, it was as if he had no clue as to what was going on during the trial and whenever he was challenged he struck back with vengence and disrespect. He was clearly annoyed each time I pointed out how wrong he was and cited a case or evidence in support. On one occassion in the middle of trial during a witness examination he abruptly stomped off and left the bench when I refused to provide an offer of proof for an unrelated witness. I strongly recommend that you consider challenging him immediately if you are assigned to his department. After trial, I spoke with a number of other attorneys, including a local prosecutor, who concurred he was one, if no the worst judges on that particular bench. I will never appear before him again and if I had the opportunity (which I won't) I would consider a CCP 170.1 just to see what kind of reaction I would get when I placed all of the comments and rulings he made during the trial before him. A really bad judge in every major category, and I'm sad to say this as I think very highly of our judiciary.

Comment #: CA1988
Rating:3.0
Comments:
This Judge prolongs the litigation at the expense of the parties,but pretexually claims he wants efficiency.He fails terribly at sanctioning the insurance defense for obvious delays, and failing to answer simple judical council interrogatories and compelling discovery, so they get away with excessive billing for obstructionism..Biased against plaintiffs. Challenge him per ccp 170.6.

Comment #: CA1186
Rating:3.7
Comments:
When he was in Family Court, he single-handedly caused the attorney fees in the case to double with rulings and judgments designed to prolong, rather than terminate the process. Maybe he didn't like the parties, but I would never appear before him again, period. Wouldn't take the chance.