Comment #: CA54288
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I was the plaintiff side for a Hearing. I also sat in on many other Hearings for which he was the judge. My assessment below is based on my experience with him and on observation of other Hearings.

1. Personal experience: Samuel Feng refused to allow plaintiff side to present any evidence at the Hearing, despite mulitple requests. It is clear that Samuel Feng decided a priori what the outcome of the trial should be and only asked leading questions to satisfy his own outcome / version of the situation so that he could speed on to his conclusion. When an explanation is proffered, Samuel cuts one off as soon as it seemed to lead to an explanation that would compel consideration of another fact. Samuel seemed to be more interested in speeding through his Hearings so that he can be done with them.

2. Samuel frequently cuts both Plaintiff and Defendant sides off and tell them to just be 'nice people' as though he is a parent making 2 children shake hands and make nice. This does not constitute appropriate handling of legal matters. It is obvious that Samuel is more interested in getting through the cases for the sake of getting through them than he is in performing his job conscientiously and with care.

3. I concur with CA34620 statement below.

"Judge Feng generalizes case facts without understanding context. He seems to feel that some laws are enforceable, while other laws are not. He has no empathy, feeling his own life serves as a template of virtue"

4. Samuel started his Hearings declaring 'This is my last day here. This is not my courtroom. I am only here because the other Judge has other matters." It came across as though he is professing and blatantly unashamed that that court docket and schedule was not his problem and he did not care and he was just there to take care of the 'factory line'. Samuel's use of the possessive 'my' gives away his unlying entitled mentality. The Court is public and at the pleasure of the People. Samuel does NOT own the Court. It is not HIS courtroom.

It is a shame that our taxpayer dollars are going to provide permanent employment and a lucrative pension for a position like this without appropriate checks and balances on their misguided authority, with little oversight and accountability.

Comment #: CA52290
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I've appeared in front of this judge twice in the past several months. I've never been the subject of his outrageous conduct, but it's painful to watch/hear him take satisfaction in embarrassing attorneys with questions and that are ridiculous or unanswerable. Be warned.

Comment #: CA48889
Rating:2.8
Comments:
Judge Feng is arrogant and insulting. I observed more than one ex parte proceeding. He shouted at pro se litigant and opposing counsel for no reason. It seems clear he does not even look at the papers. After giving a party a couple sentences to make their case, he thinks he knows everything. He refused to even hear one motion because of an error by the clerks office in failing to timely file papers.

Comment #: CA48058
Rating:9.3
Comments:
Observed Judge Feng rule on a very complex construction defect action involving over 75 parties, a large contractor and School District. He made very hard ruling but followed the law and gave all counsel the opportunity to be heard. While this ruling was issued a little bit ago. I just learned about this website. I must say he has the right skils and temperment for this position. Very good Judge, fare and listened to all counsel

Comment #: CA34620
Rating:2.2
Comments:
Judge Feng generalizes case facts wihtout understanding context. He seems to feel that some laws are enforceable, while other laws are not. He has no empathy, feeling his own life serves as a template of virtue without knowing or attempting to know that hardship is not equally meted.

Comment #: CA34014
Rating:1.0
Comments:
No experience with him at trial or hearing, but as a managing judge he allows the clerk's office to get away with destroying people's rights. Zero oversight of the court providing fair services to all. On that account, he rates extremely low. SF Superior Court in general has a huge corruption problem.

Comment #: CA12275
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Failed the Steinle trial —-