2025 JudICIAL RECALLS
JUDGE SHIRLEY WATKINS [Old Photo FROM ADVOCATE MAGAZINE]
Shirley K. Watkins was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Jerry Brown in November 2014. Prior to her appointment, Watkins practiced primarily in the area of medical malpractice and successfully handled hundreds of malpractice cases. She was a member of the CAALA Board of Governors and served in several Board positions for Women Lawyers of Los Angeles, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice and the Los Angeles County Bar Association.
She was also the subject of a recall in 2021.
With such a background one would wonder how she does not understand res judicata, issue preclusion and claim preclusion, as well as the estoppel doctrine...and how is she getting filings that aren't even showing up on the docket from opposing counsel?
While her online reviews tell the story and various sites make alarming allegations about her...this is the truth and nothing but the truth.
This is a LONG time coming ...
July 4, 2025
[Updates and predictions of future vindictive rulings will be posted until she is off the case.]
How many judges can Ashan Peiris take down? And why would Ashan Peiris tell Judge Cochran the below if he truly believed there was a settlement in Hart v LaSalle?
MR. PEIRIS: BUT I THINK I COULD USE THE RULINGS IN THIS CASE AND
THE FINDINGS TO MAKE THE MOTION IN THE OTHER CASE, AND THAT WOULD –
Judge Watkins did not seem to grasp this OBVIOUS scheme.
As most know, Hart v Sullivan was filed in 2019. Due to corrupt act after corrupt act by many including counsel listed on this site, and surviving 19 months of Judge Falls who still works from home, this case went on and on and landed with Judge Steven Cochran ("Cochran") in 2024. After another year of lunacy and on the eve of trial set for November 12, 2024, where Cochran was only giving the parties "6 hours" to put on their case, Hart settled with the remaining parties [Jonathan Kyle Dupree, LaSalle Investment Management, Inc., and LaSalle Property Fund Reit, Inc.] for $192,500 for that case, and $90,000 for Hart v LaSalle, which was filed against the SAME defendants in March 2023. One would think insurance defense would mitigate their damages but AON, SOMPO and Axis are an interesting group and appear to be as insane as their lawyers and clients.
The defendants thought it would be a good idea to KEEP engaging in utility disruption and give out plaintiff's key to a random man to walk into her unit in January 2023. The payments were supposed to be made in 2 payments: The first was to be $112,000, and the second would be $170,000. Mr. Peiris only gave Hart, $82,000. A KEY factor/term was Legacy Partners and their "counsel" would not know the terms for safety reasons. This included the maintenance manager who had been harassing plaintiff for YEARS and who while living on the property hosts an alarming YouTube Channel and a gang member who made it clear that he wanted to have sex with Hart and others, both who work for Legacy Partners.
Her entire insane order not only alters the entire lawsuit but she is changing the defunct settlement prior clauses. The prior orders have to do with 7 days after the final payment [a second payment.] But the new terms were a 2nd payment for no terms and Hart v LaSalle going forward. She now goes against a final order and says to vacate, and then get the 3rd check [changing the terms of how that were to go down] and the very next day she is going to enter dismissal. There are NO such terms in the old settlement that even permit for this.
Hart v Sullivan: While the $112,000 was to be paid within 48 hours of signing it would not be paid for 5-6 months. This is a material breach of section (u) of the settlement. Judge Watkins failed to read this. Counsel and defendants also told Legacy staff the terms, another material breach. Mr. Peiris even suggested that a Legacy employee get involved in effectuating the terms to get a negative reaction from plaintiff. Judge Watkins would go on to publish a move out date and send it to Legacy counsel, a breach of the defunct settlement she thinks is live.
While Mr. Peiris is writing of ALL the excuses the check is delayed, Hart finds out that LaSalle Investment Management, who unlawfully did business in CA for over 20 years, has gone into forfeiture with the FTB. This is also confirmed on the SOS website. All documents are available on this site. Due to not having the payment and staff acting in ways proving they know the terms, Hart files for rescission under the mandatory RTC, for fraud and for an injunction that she does not have to comply with the terms. The end result supports the doctrine of estoppel barring Judge Watkins from what she did on July 3, 2025. Her tentative and the SICK Order that has now altered the entire case, are available on this site.
Only AFTER Hart v Dupree is filed, does Mr. Peiris allegedly send a payment to plaintiff's P.O. Box even though he was instructed to place the payment under plaintiff's front door. To this day NO ONE knows what was in the envelop. The reason for sending it to the P.O. Box was they knew that Hart would not sign for something without knowing what was in it. He would later do this again. Ashan Peiris should be disbarred. So at this point Plaintiff has not only not been paid according to the terms but she has now sued for rescission [Hart v Dupree] and is aware of the FTB "forfeiture" status.
Mr. Peiris would then go on for months claiming that the FTB made an error without ANY support.
On January 3, 2025, Judge Watkins states that Hart can file a Notice of Withdrawal of Conditional Settlement and does not have to do this by motion. Plaintiff files the Notice that day.
On January 7, 2025, Judge Watkins states the following by Order:
Noice of Settlement is Withdrawn. Plaintiff has filed a notice of withdrawal of conditional settlement (1/3/25). On the Court's own motion, the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) as to defendants Jonathan Kyle Dupree, LaSalle Investment Management,Inc. (fka Maryland LaSalle Investment Management, Inc.), LPF Triana, Inc., and LaSalle Property Fund REIT, Inc. scheduled for 03/07/2025 is vacated.
Plaintiff is silly enough to rely on this Order. Ashan Peiris then goes MIA and fails to appear in the case until June, as detailed below. All parties rely on the above order and believe there is no settlement in this case. Watkins goes on to blame plaintiff for this in June 2025. Why did Ashan Peiris ask Judge Cochran to dismiss this case, if he too did not believe there was no settlement?
On January 20, 2025, The LaSalle defendants hire Gordon Rees for Hart v Dupree but the problem is, they represent Legacy Partners for various mass torts on illegal background checks at LASC and are now in possession of the settlement, ANOTHER material breach of the settlement. They are then dumb enough to sue Hart for breach for filing the case, and for filing the Notice. Both protected under the litigation privilege. How Judge Harmon handled that is detailed under HIS bio. They also sue Hart to NOT have to pay. This is crucial to what Judge Watkins later did on July 3, 2025, and the estoppel doctrine. If ONLY Judge Watkins read plaintiff's filings. She was too busy though maligning Hart in her outrageous deceptive tentatives that morphed into the odd July 3, 2025 Order, after Ashan Peiris filed a supplemental document filled with a litany of LIES on July 2, 2025. Oddly, his filing is STILL not on the docket but somehow referenced by Judge Watkins in her amended tentative at 7:50AM. How did she get the filing?
Hart propounds discovery on LaSalle in Jan 2025, and asks why she was not paid within 48 hours per the settlement, and why she was never sent a copy of the second check per the agreement. Their responses:
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Please state why YOU to this date have not sent plaintiff copies of the first checks making up the complete first payment.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Objection: This request is ambiguous and unintelligible as the Propounding Party has defined the term “YOU” to refer to the Responding Party and any agent of the Responding Party. Objection: This interrogatory is argumentative as it is harassing, accusatory and assumes facts in controversy. Therefore, it is also compound, and it would be oppressive for the Responding party to answer as written. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, 2030.060.) Objection: This request is uncertain, vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, and overly broad, as Plaintiff has not identified or defined the terms in
the above interrogatory leaving said interrogatory ambiguous. (Evidence Code § 765.) Without waiving said objection, and subject to the same, Responding Party responds as follows: In or around time of performance of the Settlement Agreement, Propounding Party made reference to filing another collateral action to which filing would excuse the
Responding Party’s performance regarding the Settlement Agreement. Due to Propounding Party filing the current action [Dec 2nd] , and Responding Party’s Answer thereto, the Responding Party’s performance remains excused.
SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please state why YOU did not place the
checks under plaintiffs front door as directed by Judge Cochran.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Objection: This request is
argumentative, burdensome and/or oppressive. (Evidence Code § 765.) Objection: This request is ambiguous and unintelligible as the Propounding Party has defined the term “YOU” to refer to the Responding Party and any agent of the Responding Party. Objection: This interrogatory is argumentative as it is harassing, accusatory and assumes facts in controversy. Therefore, it is also compound, and it would be oppressive for the Responding party to answer as written. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, 2030.060.).
This is important because Ashan Peiris claims under penalty of perjury that he sent a payment on December 4, 2024 AFTER the lawsuit was filed. It is believed that everything he did was to get the new suit filed so they did not have to pay. He later moves for an offset of $100,000 as to the liquidated damages clause.
Ashan Peiris should be disbarred.
Judge Watkins ignores the SROg responses and alleges the late payment was not material. That is not what the settlement states.
On or about February 6, 2025, Ashan Peiris reserved various dates for his Motion to Enforce in Hart v LaSalle [drafted by other lawyers] and then removes them from calendar. This is because he believes there is no settlement and he does not want the ruling to affect how Judge Cochran is going to rule on the same settlement.
Even Jade Tran, the NUT, goes on to write on March 6, 2025:
If you give proper notice and Mr. Peiris decides not to appear, we will not be agreeing to produce our clients for further depositions, especially when it has already been decided that the settlement has been withdrawn.
Hart Answers the Cross-Complaint on March 24, 2025. She pleads breach by non-payment, bad faith and impossibility. This is important as to issue/claim preclusion and doctrine of estoppel. Remember, Judge Watkins has ALL of this in the papers before her when she arrives to the insane order to make a pro per plaintiff have to move while litigating and with rents skyrocketing. Judge Sergio Tapia ALSO has all of this and is required to act [Canon 3D(1)].
At this same time, Hart is moving Department 1 to relate the cases [Case No. 1 and Case No. 3]. She has to do so because Judge Cochran would not relate. A sudden Motion to Enforce goes on calendar on or about March 13, 2025, this is also important because Ashan Peiris lies in the new Supplemental filing that he "immediately" moved to enforce. This is now over 3 months after Hart v Dupree is filed.
February 19, 2025:
MR. PEIRIS: WE WANT BOTH CASES DISMISSED AND THE OTHER
CONDITIONS MET.
THE COURT: WELL, THE OTHER JUDGE -- THE OTHER JUDGE HAS VACATED
THE SETTLEMENT? IS THAT WHAT WATKINS DID?
MR. PEIRIS: SHE VACATED THE OSC. AND SO WE INTEND TO FILE THE
SAME MOTION ON THE SETTLEMENT.
THE COURT: WELL, WHAT'S HOLDING YOU UP?
MR. PEIRIS: THE HEARING DATE. WE COULDN’T GET
THE COURT: YOU HAVEN’T FILED ANYTHING?
THE COURT: YOUR STANDING AROUND.
MR. PEIRIS: BUT WE COULDN’T GET EARLIER ACTION.
This is the "immediate" action he took and let's not forget a week earlier he vacated his reservation in Hart v LaSalle. This is all in the papers ignored by Watkins. Who is stirring the pot in Dept. T?
He also lies NOW that Hart would NOT give the $82,500 back. A new claim. On December 5, 2024, she contacted him by email to return the funds. He did not respond. She also does not spend a penny of the money until the new Order on April 11, 2025.
Another fascinating tidbit, Ashan Peiris writes Jade Tran around May 6, 2025, that he is "stipulating to continue trial" but kept Hart out of the conversation while alleging there is a settlement. Jade Tran has an obligation under the new bar rules to report Ashan Peiris, but don't hold your breath.
So...after the cases are related on March 27, 2025, Judge Cochran is angry and on April 3, 2025, puts a 402 evidentiary hearing on calendar.
Evidentiary Hearing 402 EC re Breach [2 hrs per side] is scheduled for 04/10/25 at
10:00 AM in Department 16 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
Evidentiary Hearing 402 EC re Breach [2 hrs per side] is scheduled for 04/11/25 at
10:00 AM in Department 16 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
This is an improper use of the 402 hearing. Hart is given one week. She goes in ex-parte for more time to get witnesses served. It is denied as, "not exigent." Majority of witnesses to prove breach by disclosure do not appear.
Hart and Ashan Peiris are sworn in. Brian Vukadinovich wrote a Guest Blog about his perception of the very funny hearing, but here are some take aways.
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I REALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT RELIEF YOU'RE SEEKING HERE. SO ARE YOU SEEKING AN ORDER THAT YOUR CLIENT PAY THE WHOLE AMOUNT, THERE BE A DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE...
MR. PEIRIS: WE WOULD ALSO LIKE THE DISMISSAL OF THE OTHER CASE, BUT...
THE COURT: DO I HAVE JURISDICTION TO DO THAT?
MR. PEIRIS: NO BUT -- YOU DON'T. YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION.
Mr. Peiris then admits his conspiracy:
MR. PEIRIS: BUT I THINK I COULD USE THE RULINGS IN THIS CASE AND
THE FINDINGS TO MAKE THE MOTION IN THE OTHER CASE, AND THAT
WOULD –
And in the end, he was left with NOTHING but money for dismissal ONLY.
THE COURT: OKAY. OKAY. SO LET ME GO BACK TO SOMETHING. THE DRIFT HERE IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT BEFORE ME IN TERMS OF WHAT
DEFENDANTS' RELIEF IS -- WHAT RELIEF IS AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT IS --DOES THAT RELIEF BOIL DOWN TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT MINUS 90 FOR A DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION?
MS. HART: AND I WOULD AGREE TO THAT.
MR. PEIRIS: IT'S NOT THAT -- IT'S NOT THE RELIEF -- IT'S NOT THE
RELIEF THAT WE'RE SEEKING.
THE COURT: SO PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION.
MR. PEIRIS: IT'S NOT THE RELIEF THAT WE'RE SEEKING, BUT FROM WHAT THE COURT IS IMPLYING, IT'S THE ONLY RELIEF THAT CAN BE PROVIDED.
THE COURT: YES. THAT IS SUCCINCTLY PUT.
ALL RIGHTY. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS HERE. I COULD KIND OF PROCEED TO RULING. I CAN -- I CAN ASK YOU -- WE CAN GET BACK
TOGETHER TOMORROW AND ACCOMMODATE YOUR OTHER APPEARANCE. WE CAN DO A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS.
SO LET ME ASK THE DEFENSE ONE MORE TIME: DO YOU SEEK THE RULING I DESCRIBED UPON -- UPON -- UPON CLEARANCE OF A PAYMENT FOR THE AMOUNT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION?
MR. PEIRIS: WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT IF I GOT BACK TO YOU TOMORROW?
THE COURT: OKAY. IT'S SO GOOD FOR YOU [PLAINTIFF] THAT HE'S NOT EVEN SURE HE WANTS TO SAY "YEAH" TO IT RIGHT NOW. I AM NOT -- TO RECAP, THE DEAL -- THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS STRUCTURED IN AWAY THAT THE RELIEF I'VE DESCRIBED IS REALLY THE ONLY RELIEF I'M - I HAVE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE. CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT PAID, 282 MINUS 90. UPON CLEARANCE OF THE -- OF THE TOTAL PAYMENT,
PLAINTIFF DISMISSES THIS ACTION. AND THAT WOULD BE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CASE.
This would be what Ashan Peiris would go on to LIE about in over 5 filings was HE prevailing on his motion. As the Amended RJN filed in opposition to his duplicate motion in Hart v LaSalle, he did NOT obtain ANY relief. This is also claim and issue preclusion and Res Judicata. The opposition also prepare columns for Judge Cochran to show her how ALL was previously litigated but according to her, she does not have to comply because the case is "not related." She is reinventing decades of case law.
So, Ashan Peiris comes back to court on April 11, 2025, and agrees to pay on the NEW terms and new amounts. He has still not appeared in Hart v LaSalle since January 2025.
MR. PEIRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK TO MY CLIENTS.
AND UNDERSTANDING THE COURT'S INDICATION, I BELIEVE THAT THE CLIENTS ARE GENERALLY AGREEABLE TO THE COURT'S PROPOSAL.
A NEW AGREEMENT.
MS. HART: OH, SO, AS TO THE -- I KNOW YOU ARE NOT CARVING OUT
TERMS. WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT MONEY. BUT ANY 1542 WAIVER
WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY TIME PERIOD THAT IS
OUTSIDE THIS LAWSUIT... AND I THINK YOU'VE SAID THAT TODAY. AND
I KNOW YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE TERMS, BUT I'M JUST
MAKING THAT CLEAR ON THE RECORD,
THAT IT SIMPLY HAS TO DO WITH HART VS. SULLIVAN. AND I
THINK YOU'VE SAID THAT TODAY.
THE COURT: I THINK I DID. OKAY. SO, EVERYBODY HOLD UP.
This was important to make sure that the 1542 waiver was no longer in the settlement, was not being enforced and could not be used to interfere with Hart v LaSalle. Despite ALL of this Ashan Peiris goes to Judge Watkins in late May 2025, and asks to throw plaintiff out of her home alleging that the now 1st payment was eventually paid in the 2nd check [6 months later] and so that triggered the old "90 days to vacate" but it was 2 checks and could not because Judge Cochran said Hart did not have to move with the second payment, AND counsel agreed to the new terms thereby waiving the old terms. Once that check was paid knowing that Hart did not have to vacate and the amount of the second check changed, they could not longer rely on the old terms.
Payment for NO move out, which is why she still lives at the property. Watkins would literally accuse Hart of nefarious conduct and scheming.
May 9, 2025: THAT'S WHY IN THE RELIEF THAT WAS ORDERED IT COULD NOT INCLUDE THE ALLOCATION FOR THE OTHER CASE, AND IT COULD NOT INCLUDE REQUIRING MOVING OFF THE PREMISES. WE
DISCUSSED ALL THOSE THINGS, AND THAT TRANSCRIPT MAKES
EMINENTLY CLEAR WHAT MY RULING COVERS AND WHAT IT
DOESN'T, WHAT CASE IT PERTAINS TO AND WHAT CASE IT DOES
NOT ENCOMPASS.
On May 6, 2025, LaSalle defendants move to dismiss ALL matters in Hart v Dupree as "moot." The court grants on May 9, 2025. Being that they sued for specific performance they are now waiving the ability to ask the court to enforce the settlement. This legal doctrine forbids Judge Watkins from letting them revive the claim.
Judge Watkins says on the record: I don't care about Hart v Dupree.
She then scolds Hart like a child that she is not complying with the agreement refusing to understand that under 664.6 she cannot CHANGE the new terms agreed to on the record on April 10, 2025 and April 11, 2025.
She now goes back in time and revives the 90 day move out from the April final payment despite the order that plaintiff does not have to vacate, and orders Hart to vacate and makes this public Order a breach of the clause to keep Legacy from knowing the terms. A material breach. Her vicious tentative says: Hart cannot refuse payment to delay vacating." Had she only READ the FREAKEN opposition she would have seen that the $192,500 was paid and dismissal was entered according to the new terms. Hart could not have known that the LOWLIFE Ashan Peiris was plotting with LaSalle Investment Management, David Doherty, Larry Lum, and Jonathan Kyle Dupree to send her a copy of a "void" check [a now third check never referenced in any settlement so to start some non-existent clock.] She also NOW backtracks and says that the Notice from January 3, 2025 and her Order now means nothing. Don't let the doctrine of fairness persuade this judge who will have her career over if any physical assault of HART happens at any illegal lock out. Hart is NOT moving and not giving her home to anyone. She seems to be accusing Hart of doing something improper by filing the withdrawal when it was SHE who suggested it.
The alarming Order not only disregards that the 2nd and final payment was made by another judge, and she has NO authority to add terms to it or change the NEW oral terms under section 664.6. And the settlement does not obligate Hart to take a third payment. She focuses on section (c) but (u) makes a 6-month delay in payment after suing to not have to pay, a material breach. She acts like it's a big discovery that plaintiff lives at the property. Hart makes this clear in her declaration IGNORED by the court and argues impossibility in her December 2, 2024 lawsuit, [Amended RJN, Ex. "1"] her April 10, 2025 hearing and in her Joint Reply filed in this case on June 6, 2025. So here, again, Judge Watkins lies in a public filing spewing her hate. If she is so bothered by Hart perhaps she should get the heck off the case so she does not taint the jury. Check number 2 is NONE of Judge Watkins business and she cannot change the oral terms as to it.
She has to know what she is doing is wrong so who has set this all in motion?
Hart is not moving and is prepared for whatever the evil LASC has in store for her. Should anything happen to her - please make sure all that are responsible are held accountable. And please make sure Ashan Peiris and Kyle Dupree go to jail. If there was a REAL settlement Ashan Peiris would not have asked Judge Cochran to dismiss Judge Watkins case. But clearly something and someone did something nefarious between April 22, 2025 and May 9, 2025 to put this in motion and it aint gonna get anywhere but end careers and embarrass LASC once again.
Judge Watkins and Wilson Elser are coming for someone's property and doing it illegally. Under the constitution Hart will protect her property. With all the breaches and Judge Watkins' unnecessary order she herself has caused breach. We are NOW coming for their careers.
Hopeful prediction: She ends up working from home in the same department Judge Falls is now in.
She then ignores Ashan Peiris acquiescing to "breach" in the April 11, 2025 Order and prohibits Hart from propounding discovery on the defendants when the unconscionable clause comes with a caveat: unless there is breach. She just did not read the entire clause and then states:
Defendants have established the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff has not established why it should not be enforced. The Settlement Agreement provides that Plaintiff will not prosecute discovery against the Agreement’s signatories, who include Dupree. (SA, par. 2(m).)
BUT....the actual INSANE clause states:
Defendants will comply with Judge Watkins order, dated October 25, 2024, in Lawsuit 2 no later than November 15, 2024 which includes a $250 sanction check. Plaintiff will not make motions against Defendants, serve Defendants with discovery in this action, including subpoenas for deposition or appearance at trial unless there is a breach, or a court finds that this is not an enforceable clause.
April 11, 2025 Order: Breach is conceded as to the timing of payment after the first payment. This means defendant or witness Jonathan Kyle Dupree has to be deposed. She literally denied my motion to compel.
She has the gall to write: There is nothing in the transcripts of the proceedings in the Hart v Sullivan case or ruling of Judge Cochran which affect the outcome of this motion.
April 11, 2025 Order Hart v Sullivan: After conferring with plaintiff (self-represented) and counsel for defendant, the Court issues the following ruling:
The motion to enforce settlement is granted, as fully reflected in the notes of the official court reporter and incorporated herein by reference.
This judge appears to live on another planet. Hart intends to move for a stay the case as well until the order on not allowing defendants to be deposed or take the stand. This is utter lunacy what judges force pro per litigants to go through.
The court's bizarre interpretation of the terminating motion is exactly that and will be reversed on appeal. Discovery abuse, breaching court orders [she clearly did not even remember her prior 3 sanction orders against them] and dodging discovery for YEARS warrants terminating sanctions no matter how biased this judge is. How has Hart managed to get this far with all of her "incoherent" filings? Apparently a 400-page separate Statement from Ashton McKinnon with 40 line paragraphs was coherent.
It likely was not the brightest thing to say she was "not considering Hart v Sullivan," considering that is where Res Judicata and Issue Preclusion come in. This is what happens when you don't read oppositions and rely on Ashan Peiris who this VERY judge called an "embarrassment to Wilson Else Law Firm." She knows he is responsible in part for the end of Judge Falls career, so why play into it?
Stay tuned...because this is going to get much uglier and NO agreement to waive future claims will ever be enforced in the new case because they held up payment for 6 months that led to the vacating agreement becoming moot. Perhaps she could have ruled on the stay request but that would have been too much to ask for this vindictive out-of-control judge.
JUDGE ERIC HARMON [Photo from Daily Journal]
Eric Harmon is a Judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. He was elected in 2012 wining 61 percent of the vote. He has run unopposed since and we are stuck with him unless he is recalled or forced off the bench.
Much like Falls, he was a D.A. handling cases in the Gang Unit and despite spending his career in criminal he decided in 2024 that HE wanted to move to civil and they let him. His desire to "spend time" with his new family should not be our downfall. Naturally, he relies on his "research assistant" straight out of law school to teach him the law.
March 18, 2025: To date he has claimed that a litigant can't come in by "ex-parte" to file under seal despite the code permitting it, denied an ex-parte because the motion "had yet to hit the docket" but was cited to in the application forcing a litigant to lose $500 for a reporter claiming the litigant was essentially presuming the motion she was served had actually been filed, denied a motion to file under seal, denied a motion to disqualify counsel when the law firm was also representing "Legacy Partners" in other matters and the settlement at issue in the case did not permit LEGACY "or their counsel" to have the settlement and now do, failed to mail the Answer to a Verified Statement to Disqualify and NOW denied a Demurrer and Motion to Strike a frivolous cross-complaint that is suing Hart for:
"Plaintiff filed the instant action in further violation of the Settlement
Agreement. On January 3, 2025, in a third violation of the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of the Settlement Agreement in Case No.: 23VECV01030."
These acts are protected under 47(b) and Harmon's assistant, listening in to the proceedings, Emily Tegley, stated they were not protected relying on Wentland v Wass (2005) which is breach of settlement case for violating an NDA. Here, they allege plaintiff violated by filing the lawsuit and the Notice, which the settlement permitted, and is protected. The language is very clear. The ruling is so outrageous and goes on and on proving how Harmon does not know the law and at the hearing had nothing to say because he had not read the tentative. He is so vicious they intentionally withheld the tentative until 20 minutes before the hearing. He even let a non-qualified entity sue ignoring corporate code. Complete insanity. They then worked to selectively not take judicial notice on documents that proved ownership indicative of a duo who are trying to make a pro per lose. And guess who works in Dept. 107? Jackie, who used to work in Judge Conveys' department and did lots of favors for opposing counsel. Shocking. They will not be the first nor the last to fail at their vicious efforts. Just go ask Judge Falls that is if you can find him. In fact, I was contacted by a private investigator recently looking for Falls to depose over a guy who claims he spent 30 years in jail over corrupt stuff Falls did when he was a D.A. Can't fathom what Harmon did who is a time bomb waiting to go off because he can't handle dealing with someone who knows more about civil then he does. It is obvious based on the stupidity they are going to grant the late anti-SLAPP in April trying to strike the entire complaint over a few lines, and this will then all be addressed on appeal. Good luck to Harmon and his assistant. When the case comes back to LASC he won't be a judge or able to touch the case again. Gordon Rees [and the fool, Ashan Peiris] destroyed another judge...
keep that in mind if you are hearing cases from this firm.
Don't know who let this guy end up in civil but his arrogance and laziness (comes on the bench at 9:00AM) must end.
He needs to be removed .
JUDGE THOMAS C. FALLS
Thomas C. Falls is a Judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. He was elected to the Municipal Court in 1996 and was subsequently elevated to the Superior Court after the unification of the courts in 2000. He has run unopposed since.
Presiding in the Gang Unit for most of his career he treats female litigants as though they are the second coming of Ted Bundy - taunting them with jail and contempt over astronomical fees of $44,000 for bizarre discovery referee reports from ADR.
(No photo of Falls anywhere on the internet)
February 22, 2024: Case reassigned to Judge Steven Cochran
Update July 21, 2023: Judge Falls now presides in the Clara Shortridge Criminal Justice Center in the Magistrate Division. According to the clerk in this department this division is for judges to "sign search warrants."
May 23, 2023: Court comes back to enter another Order: The case is now assigned to Judge Michael Stern....
May 12, 2023, New Order: In comes Supervising Judge Lewis (out of Pomona) to move the case to Mosk for reassignment.
Plaintiff reports the outrageousness of how a new judge could come in and within 10 days read 8 motions - and that it was obvious Judge Falls would, "write the Order."
May 9, 2023, the day Wilson Elser files a "vexatious" brief alleging it was "requested by the court" when it was not (on behalf of LaSalle Investment Management, Inc. and Kyle Dupree) where they don't allege "frivolous" cases, or that Hart lost her prior case, they have the audacity to allege "discovery abuses" under Section 391.b(3). A firm who has ignored 2 years of discovery, refused to turn Kyle Dupree over for the second part of his deposition and begged the court for a discovery referee to bankrupt Hart has the audacity to try and label HER vexatious. This same day a Notice goes up that Judge Falls is leaving Department O on May 22, 2023, 10 days before the "final" appearance on June 5, 2023, where he was going to most likely terminate the case against Hart and ignore her terminating motions against Sullivan, Legacy and LaSalle. The Order states that the hearing is still set for June 5, 2023 with the new judge (coming from Department R) also with a criminal background.
Sometime in May 2023, Hart sends the March 22, 2023 transcript to various judges at LASC.
April 10, 2023: In comes Judge Michelle Court to enter an Order stating, "in the interest of justice" Hart v Sullivan will stay with Judge Falls. No one asked for it to be moved with Hart v LaSalle. Clearly Court spoke to Falls.
March 24, 2023, yep, Judge Falls "actually" related both cases AND took the case away from Judge Salkin in Van Nuys. One can only guess whose idea that was. Hart had to then waste her 170.6 challenge on Falls who accepted after alleging that service on him dated March 24, 2023 was served in "Dept. R," which of course never happened, as to excuse the late scanning of the personal service. Stanley Mosk has yet to reassign, but told Hart over the phone that the cases should not have been related without a Notice of Related in the second case, which was not done. The madness continues....
Hoping it has not already been planned to send Hart v LaSalle Property Fund Reit, Inc. to a "friend" of Falls. We shall see....
March 22, 2023, he "relates the cases and states he is considering ending the case against Hart due to allegedly "not turning over a 2016 settlement" for "300 days" and her "insults" on the court. Whenever Hart asked Judge Falls for examples of her insults, his response, "go read the record."
March 16, 2023 Update: Hart v Sullivan, et al.
March 16, 2023, Hart files Opposition to Sullivan "Notice of Related Cases." If the cases are related Hart will file a 170.6 to remove Falls. It will be quite transparent if Falls relates the cases and refuses to leave the latter case.
On March 15, 2023, Judge Cormac Carney enters dismissal of Hart v Falls, et al., despite a March 9, 2023 email from the federal court stating that a "new order" was coming in. After Hart repeats the email to the Steven Parminter investigator at the State Bar, the case is "dismissed." (Now before the 9th Circuit).
On March 14, 2023 Sullivan filed a "Notice of Relates Cases" to try and link up Hart v LaSalle Property Fund Reit, inc. and Hart v Sullivan. Courtney Sullivan is not a defendant in the Hart v LaSalle Property Fund Reit, Inc. matter.
On March 13, 2023, Judge Falls held an OSC re: sanctions (again) for allegedly not being deposed despite a Protective Order being filed after she was harassed at the first 4.5 hours (21-hours ordered to date). Falls took Hart's Protective Order off calendar without even reading the transcript and despite the case being less 9 defendants and despite he striking sections of the complaint since the original order to sit for 21 hours. Hart is required to sit for 21 hours "because she does not answer yes or no to a question." Falls also made it clear that plaintiff has engaged in "egregious" breaches of orders. The other order breached is as to the defendants having yet to enter her home to photograph her home when her unit has nothing to do with the lawsuit and there is a pending Protective Order, and have YET to even notice entry. Naturally terminating sanctions would then be warranted.
This case is a Netflix documentary in the making.
Ashan Peiris (now "of counsel" we all know what that means) on behalf of Kyle Dupree & LaSalle Investment, in an 800-page declaration alleged that Hart was not allowed to write LaSalle Property Fund Reit, Inc., despite not being a defendant in Hart v Sullivan.
Hart is about to lose 2 years of discovery because she cannot afford pay JAMS $1000 an hour. Falls was supposed to take back discovery over a year ago and instead will now punish Hart by trying to cut off her case.
On March 9, 2023, the Courtroom Deputy Clerk in the Hart v Falls matter writes Hart, "An order will be issued shortly giving defendant's chance to file a reply." This led plaintiff to believe that the anticipated dismissal was delayed.
On March 8, 2023, Hart files Hart v LaSalle Property Fund Reit, Inc. at Van Nuys Courthouse. It is assigned to Judge Salkin.
On March 2, 2023, Justices Lui, Ashmann-Gerst and Chavez denied Hart's third writ and supporting Amicus from Consumers Attorneys of California. Apparently an unprecedented order of a 21-hour deposition
(Cahill Construction Co., Inc. v Superior Court (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 777, 787) making Hart pay for all court transcripts, striking her Objection to an unlawful inspection of her home as a "flagrant abuse", making her pay $44,000 to reimburse Sompo International and Axis Capital for the most bizarre referee reports, and stating, "It's not like I can actually point a gun at your head and take your check book" is not evidence of bias and did not warrant a neutral judge reviewing her Third Verified Statement to Disqualify Falls before Falls improperly struck it.
On February 24, 2023, Falls suddenly corrects his September 8, 2022 Order leading Hart to believe that the $16,500 due to reimburse Sompo International for the most bizarre ADR report, was not due until March 24, 2023.
On February 23, 2023, Hart goes in ex-parte to get clarity on the OSC; Is it civil, criminal, coercive or punitive? Falls denies as not exigent and does not tell her that it is not a contempt hearing. Falls also refuses to correct his September 8, 2023 defective order.
On February 14, 2023, a day that was set to hear Hart's Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Sullivan and Legacy, which he continued to a later date, ordered plaintiff to pay $1800 for Jim Vaughn to review Wayne Norris' declaration as to the work he did on the cell phone extraction and the protocol entered into between the parties, which was not an order of the court. This was a continuance from the prior improper contempt of October 26, 2022. The problem is, there is no order that instructed how any extraction could take place and the court cannot hold a party in contempt over an agreement between the parties. (Martins v Superior Court (1970) 12 CA3d 870, 876-877, 90 CR 89. Despite plaintiff bringing $23,000 to court to make partial payment to reimburse billion dollar insurance carriers for ADR's insane reports, it was "still a breach" of the prior vague court orders and he puts yet ANOTHER OSC on calendar. This entire case before Falls has consisted of bogus and deceptive sanction hearings instead of DISCOVERY hearings. Hart asked to please correct his September 8, 2022 order telling Hart to pay Legacy defendant's allocation fees to LaSalle Investment Management, Inc., lawyers. He would not. Apparently $8000 was not enough for Sompo International.
On January 20, 2023, Bubion runs to tell the court that Hart has yet to pay reimbursement of $26,500, and asks to move Hart's pending Motion for Terminating Sanctions. Judge Falls complies of course and then states in the Minute Order that it was done on his own motion. At this hearing he allows KTS and Jamie Sternberg out of the case on Summary Judgment allowing them to maintain her personal identifiers they obtained without her permission - ignoring various consumer protection laws.
October 26, 2022, without reading Hart her rights, holds her in contempt (Final Order entered on November 1, 2022) alleging her computer consultant and she "willfully" went outside the court's July 28, 2020 Order because he ran tests to make certain the 2017 cell phone belonged to the defendant, as it appeared wiped with little to no data, and for listening to 2 audio files in the date range permitted by the court and for opening gmails that were transferred by Jim Vaughn's office after the extraction in order to look for what information was stolen from Hart's tenant file. None of this was a breach. Falls ordered she pay $750 to the court, to destroy all extraction reports (which have data of crimes being committed to include perjury) and to turn over all devices to the court. He did not seem to care that the defendant had wiped her phone of the gmail that was the basis of the inspection despite 2 court orders not to destroy evidence in the case.
September 25, 2022 Update: And the madness continues...
On May 26, 2022, Falls enters an order that if Hart settles with some of the defendants she can keep those funds and would not have to pay the allocation from it (the wacky discovery referee fees for reports that consist of "see no. 1" and "see no, 8" as it's legal conclusions).
Hart then enters into a $120,000 settlement. On June 6, 2022, Falls finds out that he has been added to the recall committee.
On June 12, 2022, Falls picks JAMS as the new referee over Hart's objection. Referee Swart is $1000 an hour. As though any lawyer in the case could afford to pay $1000 an hour. Thankfully they have their insurance carriers to engage in years of discovery games;
Sompo International and Axis Surplus.
No other judge would ever hand such outrageous orders.
On June 24, 2022, Falls enters an unprecedented order that plaintiff has to pay 90% of the referee fees (billed before ADR did any work) despite decades of precedent - it's clearly retaliation for Hart's First Amendment right to recall a judge and file a lawsuit.
Then, on September 8, 2022, days after the settlement is paid, Falls now states that plaintiff has to pay allocation from the settlement.
Purely insane.
Falls also buys into the lies that LaSalle Property Fund Reit, Inc., is not the real owner of the property despite public records and a custodian of the city authenticating the business license. What does LaSalle and their lawyers at Wilson Elser come up with? The business tax application and application that the property has been working under for 4 years, is "hearsay" despite Evidence Code Section 1414, and despite the fact that they have been paying taxes under the license number for 4 years. You can't make this up. They actually accused Davin Ross, the former property manager, of essentially committing fraud and lying in the documents he submitted to the city on LaSalle's behalf. They said he was "not authorized," to file the application with the city as though he came up with the name on his own. lol. And Ross' lawyer, Justin Bubion, remained silent. This is all on the record.
This is how biased Falls is - won't even look at the obvious or the facts before him.
When a judge has a financial interest in a case like stopping the plaintiff who intends to recall him - might be a good time to recuse yourself.
As thought this was not enough, he sanctioned Hart for writing Kyle Dupree about the property. Two court orders stated that she could and Dupree was rerouting Hart's emails to JLL back to him, taking steps to make sure that he received the emails.
On July 28, 2020, Judge Traber ordered Sullivan's devices extracted due to she stealing copies of Hart's PII from her tenant file at 1:00AM. The extraction takes place in October 2020. Evidence is seen in the date range proving Courtney Sullivan made false claims against plaintiff and lied that she did not have records that she did. Now, 2 years later, her counsel, Justin Bubion, taking advantage of the crazy orders, seeks to get Hart sanctioned alleging she and her consultant "went outside the protocol." This did not happen but the truth does not matter in Department R.
Hart then opposes the motion on August 31, 2022, with a sworn declaration from her consultant. Bubion replies to the Opposition. Falls then states on September 12, 2022, "Plaintiff did not oppose the motion despite being on notice." lol
During ex-parte communications on August 31, 2022, Falls grants a property inspection into her unit for no reason (and allows counsel to take photos of her belongings). He then strikes her Objection when she discovered what took place. Hart unfortunately now has to sue the court under U.S Section 1983.
This whole thing is nuts.
This isn't a lawsuit this is a war between a judge who wants to stop Hart's advocacy.
Let this be a lesson to all voters - be careful who you vote for and look into all judges on the ballot. Exposing a corrupt system is worth the fight.
Hart has also been ordered into 21 hours of a deposition or face "terminating sanctions". The first 4 1/2 hours (on a day noticed for Defendant Deanna OBrien) were comical - Bubion asked more questions about this recall than the actual law suit.
You really can't make this stuff up.
Due to CJP's relationship with Bacigalupo - of course they are turning a blind eye to it all.
Lifetime Movie? Discovery Channel? Netflix?
Feel free to monitor the case.
Trial set for March 2023. Should be very entertaining.
July 20, 2022, UPDATE: Judge Thomas Falls held a hearing where only Justin Bubion appeared. He then agreed to move up a meritless motion to hold plaintiff in contempt that was to be heard in late November, to now be heard on September 12, 2022. The motion is filled with perjury and has been sent to The State Bar. On July 20, 2022, Judge Falls finally granted a Good Faith Application to settle with some of the defendants. The very next day another motion popped up filed by the LaSalle Defendants (Kyle Dupree and LaSalle Property Fund) asking for plaintiff to be sanctioned "$20,000" for communicating with her landlord and reporting feces all over the garage due to a waste pipe leaking for almost one year. An exhibit (Exhibit"H") in the motion is forged and has been turned over to The State Bar who are currently investigating Steven Parminter. It is obvious that the court is working with defense counsel to now chip away at the settlement.
There is no end to the madness that is LASC.
Unprecedented (and retaliatory) orders are being made in this case. On July 15, 2022, Judge Thomas Falls struck "13" declarations filed in the case by the plaintiff. His reason (days before a writ is going to be filed on his June 24, 2022 Order), they are each "frivolous" and "meant to intimidate the court," while not citing to any line in any of the 13 declarations. Why would a judge strike a declaration 7 months after it was filed?
On July 7, 2022, we were sent the following:
"Judge Falls is a judge in Pomona. Because I do not wish to deal with people like Judge Falls, I rarely, if ever, take a case in Pomona. His reputation precedes him -- it is not good."
We will not repeat what public defenders have told us about him, but his orders in Hart v Sullivan, say it ALL.
Why is Judge Paul Bacigalupo, Judge Salvatore Sirna and Judge Eric Taylor helping this alarming judge strip a litigant's rights away and destroy the record?
June 30, 2022, UPDATE: Denied request to stay referee orders pending writ, denied permission to file a concise outline (pretty sure he did not know what this is) denied request for mediator in depositions due to counsel's bad conduct (said nothing about the conduct described in ex-parte application but continues to admonish plaintiff on her conduct), denied request to consolidate 8 July motions to save plaintiff money on court reporters, refuses to comply with September 4, 2020 Order that plaintiff only pay one referee admin fee. Refuses to hear a motion on plaintiff's economic inability, and alleges that plaintiff can afford a referee because "someone" previously helped her on a writ (a pro bono firm).
June 24, 2022, UPDATE: Judge Falls has now ignored decades of precedent and ordered a pro per litigant of less than modest means to pay a total of $36,000 of discovery referee fees despite ADR abrogating court orders, allowing for document dumps and acknowledging that they did, "not know current code." The presiding judges at LASC all knew what Judge Falls was about to do and supported this outrageous order. This order is also in direct contradiction to a prior September 4, 2020 Order, which stated allocation would only happen if, "fair and just under all circumstances." Section 1023 does not even permit one side to pay the majority of fees. This man must be removed from the bench.
He has also NOW sent the referee matter to JAMS who is $1000 an hour over plaintiff's written objections. This man is vindictive and out of control and not FIT to sit on the bench.
April 21, 2022, UPDATE: Judge Falls denied a Good Faith citing a paragraph not in the FAC. He has also denied a Fee Waiver request because if granted, he would have to take back discovery in the case.
He is not allowing a pro per litigant to prove economic inability and has ignored 4 declarations evidencing health issues (already on the record) and that she is being monitored by various doctors, and will continue to be for the next 4 years - and naturally, needs her money for expensive healthcare/monitoring.
Despite decades of precedence, Section 639 and CRC, Rule 3.922, he chose a NEW referee over objections, and is contemplating allocating $46,000 onto a pro per for a discovery referee who had NO business being a referee.
Motions filed by the likes of Justin Bubion and Steven Parminter were not an affirmative showing, and they unilaterally decided that a DENIED discovery request was worth $91.00 and $178.00 each. This case has become a freak show.
ADR should never have taken the matter because of a 2016 conflict issue with the plaintiff and because Referee Thomas had not sat on the bench in 35 years, and acknowledged he did, "not know current code."
He also did not know of the new 2020 Code of Civil Procedure that did not permit for a litigant to point to a document dump and DENIED supplemental responses. Now a pro per is faced with having to pay for this madness.
Parminter, on behalf of LaSalle, actually submitted invoices that were voided by ADR.
LaSalle responds to admissions with "argumentative" instead of a straightforward admission or denial. Now a pro per is faced with $1000 an hour to a new referee. Parminter asks the court to teach this pro per litigant a lesson that she needs to "meet and confer," after he ignored a year's worth of Meet and Confer letters, and was given three opportunities to supplement.
After Ret. Judge Polis withdrew (the second discovery referee) due to the improper referee order, Falls now orders the plaintiff to pay an $850 Admin Fee, for a new referee (Ret. Judge Swart of JAMS) over objection, and despite a prior 2020 Order stating the plaintiff only had to pay ONE admin fee, with the defendants having to pay any future admin fees. Swart also demands 13% of each hour to JAMS.
The presiding Judge and Supervising Judges at LASC continue to turn a blind eye. While their duty is to the public they are too busy protecting each other.
Falls continued the Good Faith, which was to be heard on January 6, 2022 (since denied), on calendar for months, due to Ashan Peiris (Wilson Elser) the Associate representing LaSalle Investment, submitting a Notice of Continuance on January 3, 2022, alleging "unavailability" between December 21, 2021- January 9, 2022 (a Sunday). Naturally one would file such a document 13 days after the fact, and in the wrong Courthouse.
Peiris continued to email about the case on January 5, 2022, while alleging unavailability - not the brightest bulb. After the plaintiff pointed out his stupidity, suddenly, on January 7, 2022 (the day after the hearing was to be heard), all parties started to receive an "out of office" email from him.
Who can explain such incompetence and gamesmanship? And what kind of Judge would buy into the lies, and perjury? Judge Falls.
If you are female, and a pro per, you have no chance at Los Angeles Superior Court.
Falls is attempting to stop the plaintiff in her tracks so she is too fearful to file a Motion to Compel because she might get stuck paying $46,000 for a hearing. The law says that a litigant is entitled to the court without a fee and that a declaration of economic inability is sufficient (Hood v. Superior Court). Hart reported Falls to the CJP (there is a supposedly an investigation), and served him with a Verified Statement to Disqualify him, which of course, he struck.
Judges at LA Superior Court continue to exhibit bias and chauvinistic tendencies, and do not care what the law is, nor do they comply with California Rules of Court.
This must stop.
The public must work together to get rid of these horrendous Judges once and for all.
Next time this could be you.
#1Million5
JUDGE BERNIE C. LAFORTEZA
July 2023 Update:
Judge LaForteza returns to criminal court, but the damage has been done.
UPDATE: Judge LaForteza recused himself from this case on October 4, 2021, after much damage to Hart v Sullivan, et al. As retaliation by LASC, and the Supervising Judge, the case has been moved to Pomona.
LaForteza was appointed to the bench by Arnold on November 5, 2008. He has run unopposed since. He must seek re-election in the June 7, 2022 Statewide Direct Primary Election to be installed for another term in 2023.
In August 2010, LaForteza was referenced in an article on sfgate.com about donations, and gifts, given to then District Attorney, Steve Cooley. LaForteza made it to the list for giving Cooley $100 worth of cigars.
His dismissal of a defendant in People v. Gonzalez (2015), was revered.
In 2018, People v. Vasquez was retried due to his improper jury instructions, and now in 2021, he has made his way into civil court in Van Nuys.
He replaced a great judge, Judge Traber, who suddenly left the department in February 2021.
During his short period of time in Department U he has ruled as follows:
Suggested in an order that a pro per litigant hire a service to go through a 14,800 video dump despite the videos not being responsive to a prior court order, Struck 3000 documents from the docket as to help opposing counsel who filed 642 documents they alleged were "personnel files."
Has ignored CCP, section 2023.080(a).
Struck a Verified Statement to Disqualify served on him for clear bias four hours after being served.
Refused to order a third party, RealPage, to remove plaintiff's personal identifiers from their website despite never being given authority.
Refused to direct the Legacy defendants to repair defects that put tenant lives in danger.
Permits counsel to lie to him on an ongoing basis - even turns counsel's deceptive declaration statement into Orders.
Permitted Justin A. Bubion ("Bubion") who left Traub to go to Quintairos, representing Courtney Sullivan and Legacy Partners, Inc., to file his own client's SSN w/o sanctions, despite Rule 1.20.
Despite evidence before him that the plaintiff engaged in a year's worth of meet and confer efforts as to a defendant deposition, and despite oral arguments proving that the court misstated facts in the tentative accusing the plaintiff of "prematurely filing a motion" on July 2, 2021, when the docket clearly shows she waited till July 9, 2021, he ruled against her MTC. He is very dismissive and will not change his tentatives regardless of the evidence before him.
It has been noticed by many that he is consistently ruling against a pro per litigant despite the facts before him and appears to have some form of animosity towards her - yet refuses to remove himself from the case. A judge should not rule from a place of hate.
LaForteza says on the record, "discovery responses are never part of the record," and therefore he was going to strike all filings in the [referee] matter, and did. While they are still available on the "document" section of the docket (wiped though from the case access), the only document that has actually vanished, is a mere Declaration filed by the plaintiff on June 3, 2021. He did this to help Bubion and because the plaintiff opposed the sealing. The docket clearly shows that there are discovery responses in the parties IDC briefs filed in August 2020, plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions which was GRANTED in October 2020, and her CMC statement filed in April 2021. Yet suddenly, he is going to strike Bubion's filings on June 4, 2021, because discovery responses were attached.
This is absurd!
On August 31, 2021, after finally ruling on the discovery referee matter he affirmed Judge Thomas from ADR Services, Inc., outrageous 175-page of recommendations only tweaking 3 of them. He alleged in his tentative made into an Order that plaintiff's objection's were "meritless." After permitting all parties to file w/ the court all documents they wanted considered for the August 31, 2021, hearing, he turned around and ignored all of plaintiff's July 30, 2021, objections and declaration. Discovery called "basic" by judge Traber and the reason why she ordered a referee with defendants paying all costs, was now not permitted. Documents proving harassment, retaliation, unlawful late fees, perjury and habitability issues were all now not going to be turned over. Over 200 "I don't recalls" and refusal to admit or deny was all acceptable to Judge LaForteza who when asked for clarity, as his ruling was confusing - he said he does not "give advise." He granted a MTQ based on two words in one of the RFP and when asked to address the rest of the requests, and why he was denying the entire subpoena...he refused to explain. Judge LaForteza is vindictive and incompetent and must be removed from the bench. His rulings are ripe for appeal and now the entire case will have to be retried because of him.
Similar conduct is detailed on The Robing Room by a poster on June 1, 2021.
He even allowed Bubion to get away without filing substitutions with the court despite CRC, Rule 8.36(b).
LaForteza is not ruling on the merits - he takes a line in a motion and conforms it to the ruling and outcome he wants, which is for the pro per plaintiff to lose. This is not the job of ANY judge. If the public were to look at the Minute Orders from Judge Traber, and compare them to Judge LaForteza, one will see a fair judge's perception of the case in contrast with a bias judge on a clear mission.
If judges handled their calendars and ruled according to precedent, Judicial Canon of Ethics, California Rules of Court and the Discovery Act, this madness could be avoided. Pro per litigants should evade this judge from the outset.
LARecalls will be actively working to expose the conduct of Bubion, Ashan Peiris and Eli Gordon who we believe should be suspended, and or disbarred from practicing law. The State Bar must stop this misconduct, which is unfortunately accepted every day when there is a pro per litigant in a case.
What is transpiring in Department U is pure madness and is the epitome of what is wrong with LASC, and why our judicial elections are so vital.
How long should LaForteza sit on the bench stripping others of their right of access to the court?
#1Million5
JUDGE PAUL BACIGALUPO - RETIRED!!!
Hired by the court’s judges as a commissioner, Judge Paul Bacigalupo ran in 2002, able to claim he was an “LA Superior Court Judge” on the ballot. He has run unopposed since never appearing on a general election ballot again.
Bacigalupo is accused of arrogance and having significant disdain toward litigants, proven in this video of his speech at the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) audit hearing on June 12, 2019, in which he implies all complaints come from disgruntled family law litigants. This is extremely inappropriate coming from a judge in charge of hearing every side of an argument in the court of law.
Bacigalupo is openly anti-CJP reform, which should concern everyone who walks into his courtroom, especially since the mission of the CJP is “to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system.” The CJP, which jurisdiction is only the state of California, have received over 6,000 complaints - showing there are obviously substantial issues that need to be addressed.
Transcripts from his courtroom have shown Bacigalupo antagonizing and mocking litigants. Many have witnessed him yelling at self-represented litigants for no reason. Though he claims judges are “thoughtful,” as stated in his speech in the above video, he is not.
In one startling example of his bias and hostility, in June 2018, Bacigalupo sanctioned (charged) a plaintiff $2500 over a Protective Order on a subpoena for work emails relating to the management of a rental property. The subpoena sought specific emails sitting on the defendants work server relating to the plaintiff and her tenancy. The problem though is that the motion he referenced (on the record) he was sanctioning the plaintiff on, had been taken off calendar in December 2017, and the legal fees/costs requested, were for work that could never have taken place (oppositions and appearances), and didn’t.
It was evident that Judge Bacigalupo did not even read the given subpoena and stated all the records were “employment records,” when only one of the 18 requests in the subpoena was for an employment record - an employment application. Based on these facts, code of civil procedure and precedent, he was not permitted to deny the production of the emails let alone sanction the plaintiff at all.
Just weeks after sanctioning this litigant for no reason, Bacigalupo began his new position as the President of the California Judges Association (CJA). According to employees at the CJA, he was appointed by the board of 26, not “elected” as he claims in the above video.
Bacigalupo‘s conduct is more than questionable - it’s vindictive and alarming and devoid of any legal authority. He should not be permitted to sit on any bench, let alone be president of CJA judging other judges.
A report of his conduct was made directly to the CJP on July 9, 2018. One year later - still no response. This should come as no surprise considering months earlier, in March 2018, Greg Dresser, the head of the CJP, attended an event (The Evolution of Judging - hosted by the CJA) with Bacigalupo - not to mention Bacigalupo was a Special Master for the CJP in 2018. We presume he couldn't judge himself.
Please join our efforts to remove him from the bench.
#1Million5
JUDGE MICHAEL CONVEY
Convey joined LA Superior Court as a commissioner in 2002 and was appointed by Arnold in 2010. Convey ran for re-election in 2012 as an unopposed incumbent never appearing on the general election ballot again. His term ends in 2025. We must recall him now.
Convey has a very interesting way he runs his courtroom. With his background in insurance defense he appears to empathize with defendants and the carriers. To say he despises self-represented litigants would be quite the understatement. Even when presented with new facts - and evidence, he denied a plaintiff's right to amend her complaint. He then forced her to respond to a demurrer filed by an employee of a suspended corporation after mediation and settlement. Convey could have simply taken the motion off calendar as required per CA Rules of Court, Rule 3.1385(c)(3) or the lawyer in question [Bart Ring] could have withdrawn the motion. Instead the self-represented litigant was forced to file a response/opposition to the demurrer. His courtroom staff then allowed this same lawyer (via a mere phone request) to move up a protective order hearing seeking sanctions of $6400 against the self-represented litigant (after settlement) by two months without a motion to shorten time, his approval or the parties in the case stipulating. He never even sanctioned the lawyer for doing so. This new date did not even permit for proper service under CCP Section 1005. He then denied (and struck) the plaintiff's motion to disqualify him for bias. This seems to be a pattern of his. He is currently permitting a cross-complaint (in the same matter) to be litigated after no responsive pleading was filed by the cross-defendants (or default entered) for 15 months. Convey never even put an Order to Show Cause hearing on calendar as transcripts lodged in 2019, confirm. While the case settled for $300,000...this judge has no business being on the bench.
Public records show a case filed by a self-represented litigant against him (a lawyer himself); Art Bufford v. Michael J Convey, et al. (2007). The stories about Convey are endless. It is believed that he is one of the judges who egged on Falls terror of Hart in Hart v Sullivan as retribution for being posted here.
He tragically even issued a restraining order against singer Elizabeth Le Fey (appearing in pro per) when in fact she was physically assaulted by the petitioner. You can read more about her case below.
How much more damage will we allow Convey to cause?
JUDGE TIMOTHY DILLON
Judge Timothy Dillon was appointed by Governor Brown in 2015. His term is set to end in 2022. We must remove him from the bench now, not let him sit for another three years.
Judge Dillon is a member of the Executive Board of the California Judge’s Association (CJA).
There have been a number of potentially corrupt and indecent judges associated with the CJA.
In a recent case of retaliatory eviction as reported by KNOCK-LA, Judge Dillon overturned a jury’s decision in favor of the tenant causing the tenant to be evicted despite evidence that the tenant was being targeted.
Judge Dillon has been accused of ex-parte communications, which is defined as “any communication between a judge or juror and a party to a legal proceeding or any other person about the case, outside of the presence of the opposing party or the opposing party's attorney.”
In one specific instance, a parent informed us that Dillon admitted on the record to doing so.
Dillon is also accused of not reading motions or declarations and making judgments without being fully informed.
In another case, Judge Dillon stated on the record at least three times that he was aware of, and or in awe of, the petitioner’s boss, “a great doctor” and did not recuse himself. This unfounded admiration of a gastro doctor who moonlights as a movie producer, lead to the judge bullying the actual victim, the respondent, over having the audacity to copy this “great doctor“ on ONE email, and blindly believing the petitioner’s testimony, which would later be proven to have been perjured testimony. This clear bias lead to the respondent reluctantly, and out of great fear, signing a stipulation. When later presented with proof of perjury obtained in a separate civil suit against the petitioner, Judge Dillon said nothing and did nothing and refused to vacate.
In fact, Judge Dillon has been accused multiple times of turning a blind eye to perjured testimony allowing litigants with criminal records to walk away unscathed. Why take the oath if there are no repercussions for lying?
There have been several reports against Judge Dillon to the CJP who are supposed to be an independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining judges. Unfortunately they did nothing.
You can read a few of his reviews on The Robing Room.
Judge Timothy Dillon believes he will face no consequences for his years of alarming conduct.
We are here to prove him wrong.
JUDGE ALISON MACKENZIE
Judge Alison Mackenzie was appointed to the bench by Governor Brown in July 2018 to fill a vacancy.
Mackenzie’s background is in entertainment law, so naturally she is presiding in a family law court.
Mackenzie is disorganized, scattered, and misrepresents the facts on the record. She sends litigants to other courtrooms only to find out there is no judge currently in that courtroom.
The hate she exhibits towards litigants is unacceptable.
At one hearing, Mackenzie was holding a FL300 order form in her hand while saying over and over “I don’t have an order” on the record. She then accused the respondent of “not filing a proof of service,” despite the docket showing it was filed a month prior. Mackenzie had very little to say about the actual request for clarification and subsequently denied the request.
Mackenzie is erratic and berated the same respondent in an open courtroom, yelling that the respondent had a restraining order against her and how “serious” it was, when she demonstrably did not. In fact, even Judge Dillon had previously stated on the record “there is no restraining order - just a piece of paper in a file.” Mackenzie then ignored opposing counsel’s improper conduct when she was informed that counsel told the respondent’s landlord that the respondent had a restraining order on her, hoping to get her evicted. Counsel didn't even deny it on the record. Mackenzie said "You do..." when in fact, she didn't.
We receive reports about this judge on a weekly basis. Quite alarming. Her rage and bias statements seem to be systemic. According to litigants she sends her Bailiff to the hall to tell them of her final order. Naturally.
Judge Mackenzie has been on the bench for a short time and has already shown she is not capable of the position.
Join us in our efforts to recall Judge Mackenzie.