"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

* *

Confirm E-mail Address

* * *

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

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:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Charles J. Umeda

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA53066
Rating:3.5

Comments:
UD case for non payment of rent. Def. brought habitability defense. Def. lied in court and Judge apparently believed him. Def. offered little to no proof of allegations. Judge ignored Plf. evidence and ruled for the Def.
Defendant was very personable and an excellent liar, but Judge should have considered the evidence. Withholding of rent comes with some responsibilities. Judge did not address this or challenge the lack of evidence. When challenged by Plaintiff, Defendant claimed that a receipt was probably at home. Judge accepted this.
Decision had no information other than “Judgment for the defendant“
Defendant still not paying rent months after trial and any alleged issues were addressed.
Now, there will be more losses and a new trial.
After years on the bench, it appears that Hon. Judge Umeda hears mostly small claims matters.
I am honored to submit his first review on The Robing Room.