Comment #: CA53803
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Wendy Chang strikes me as one of those judges who never really had much success in private practice, so she parachuted to becoming a judge where she could run amock. How many cases did she actually try before becoming a judge? Or was she a paper pusher. She is very pro defendant or whoever she likes. Makes the judiciary look bad if the litmus test is evenhandedness and ethics, and does not meet the criteria. She follows the rules and letter of the law when she wants to induce punishment, or has an agenda to fulfill. She cannot take off her advocate hat when she acts in the role as judge which is supposed to be "neutral". But with this judge neutrality goes out the window. There seems to be no such thing in the judiciary as neutrality. Those days seem to either be gone or never existed.

Comment #: CA52212
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Incredibly biased. She didn't read my papers on the dispositive Motion to Quash, and not one case supported her. Same on my Motion to Compel Further Responses. In both, she represented the shyster defendant lawyer.

Comment #: CA52103
Rating:1.0
Comments:
discriminatory against blacks. prefers male litigants usually and errs on the side of defendant over plaintiff.

Comment #: CA46980
Rating:9.5
Comments:
Had my reservations about this judge when my case was first reassigned to her when the previous judge moved to a different department. Then I began to see that she is super smart and literally remembered every detail about two related cases before her and previous disposed cases. I do not even think I ever had to remind her of anything. And she is quick -- runs through her morning calendar efficiently, yet always willing to let you make your record (I always have a court reporter attend). I have seen some smart judges, but I believe she is literally one of the smartest on the bench. One thing to note, she is a stickler about ordering sanctions -- she wants to give the other party every opportunity to explain or correct their actions, so you may not prevail when moving for sanctions, but that is a small price to pay for an overall smart, efficient, and unusually fair judge.

Comment #: CA42571
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Read the court rules and provide courtesy copies otherwise your matter will be continued. She listens to both side and gives them both opportunity to talk without interruption and is respectful. I am scared to be in her court room in pro se so we will see.

Comment #: CA41398
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This "judge" is constantly telling counsel that she used to work with opposing counsel, but you should believe she won't be biased. SHE IS BIASED. Get your case reassigned while you can.

Comment #: CA41324
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Beyond bad. She allows meritless cases to proceed filed by bad actors seeking revenge on victims. If you are counsel to defense of a frivolous case, move immediately to disqualify her. Seek reassignment to a real judge who can actually see and stop a BS case, otherwise you will be stuck with her for five years waiting for the case to inevitably fail.

Comment #: CA40688
Rating:1.5
Comments:
She compliments you as she's denying you. Total phony. No tentatives, just a "deny" or "grant" at the beginning of the hearing, so no way to know reasons for decision, and she never waivers. Her obvious inexperience is abundantly evident, and means it is just too much for her to even consider oral arguments thus the initial deny or grant is in stone. Probably has a researcher, and also she never waivers because that would mean work for her. She's a judge in name only. You know other judges who are seasoned and can spot important nuances or parts of a law that have not been settled yet and are ripe for argument? Not her. She is a newbie, detrimental to all parties. Especially atrocious against pro pers, absolutely biased and never rules in favor of a pro per, even as you hear pro per arguments with merit that are worthy of consideration (during telephonic hearings while awaiting your case to be called). Biased. Hard left on this one. Get case reassigned (still 15 days?) while you can. Do not miss opportunity to avoid an inexperienced, very emotional, biased, phony judge-in-name-only. Attorneys run circles around her, but the problem is that she won't waiver because she doesn't want to do the work of changing a ruling or the bruise to her ego that her ruling was simply wrong. She's learning on the job, but it is obvious she does not want to learn at all.

She has no awareness of your case, only sees a motion in front of her and even that overwhelms her. How does a Loyola Law School grad become a judge? So many more qualified attorneys to appoint from so something went on behind the scenes there. Even if she was merely a diversity pick, there are tens of thousands of more highly qualified diverse attorneys. Travesty that she was appointed.

Like an inexperienced kid with a learner's permit taking you on a cross-country roadtrip, proceed at your peril. Get out and get rid of Chang while you can.

Comment #: CA39919
Rating:2.1
Comments:
Bad judge. Beware, attorneys know much more than she does, so you will have to teach HER. She has aggressive emotional outbursts that come out of nowhere and for no reason. She lacks experience as a judge so seems insecure and randomly screams in an attempt to appear powerful (you know the type), instead she's a bully with emotional issues. She will Stay a case without either party moving for or wanting it, and refuses to explain the reason. She will delay your case endlessly, apparently because she is overwhelmed by the cases, all of which she appears to know nothing about. So a Stay means one less case in her caseload. Do a peremptory challenge immediately (pro pers, look up that term) unless you want your case in jeopardy of being Stayed and indefinitely halted for no reason. Then she schedules a hearing during a supposedly Stayed case. Insanity.

She is also extremely vindictive and childishly seeks retaliation. If she wants to discuss random matters in your case in depth that were not even on calendar and you mention you are unprepared for that, during the next hearing she will act vicious and scream at even the simplest question about the case beyond what is on calendar, as if her feelings were slighted (narcissistic). Yikes.

And her courtroom staff "rotates" weekly because she refuses to commit to hiring anyone, so get ready to have to reintroduce yourself and your case to endlessly new courtroom staff whenever you call. This has been going on for months.

Cannot think of one good thing about her. True disaster: Narcissist, incompetent, inexperienced, emotionally explosive, no clue about cases, courtroom staff rotations, vindictive, delays. Cannot imagine a trial with her. She creates problems, contradicts herself endlessly, and is a nightmare you wish you could wake up from. Do a challenge while you can. If in doubt, go sit in a hearing and see the monumental disaster for yourself.

Comment #: CA39394
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She makes multiple errors -- she wanted to deny motion to seal until I had to tell her it was to seal docs opposing party had filed unredacted in violation of a previous court order to seal (by previous judge in dept). So she obviously had not even read the motion or reviewed the case. She denied motion for sanctions against opposing party for violating that court order 11 times. Yet I had to file, reserve, draft, serve, attend hearing for two motions because of opposing party's violations.
Then during hearing on motions she called impromptu discovery conference -- not on calendar -- so obviously parties had no discovery with them to actually discuss. She is just dumb.
In hearing she forced parties to sched meet and confer together, but later same day in related case non-hearing minute order she scheduled status conference for same day and time she had just had parties schedule meet and confer so I had to call her clerk who had to tell her to change it. She is not very bright. She makes many, many errors. Her emotions run the gamut from rude, angry, and snappish to nicey-nice (as if to balance the anger).
Wish I had filed pre-emptive challenge. Even in other cases she errs, for example I heard an attorney ask for a continuance and she angrily told him no and that he already had had a continuance -- then that attorney had to correct her and say there had never been a continuance, which she had to admit. Colossal failure as a judge -- just one problem after another. She literally creates problems. Run, don't walk, away from this judge. File 170 against her when you can. It is as if she is learning on the job -- total nightmare for your case and extra work for you.

Comment #: CA39224
Rating:4.5
Comments:
~Judge Chang is definitely not a legal scholar. She has trouble dealing with even the most elementary concepts in commercial practice. She does not move cases along, so things just sit in her courtroom. If your case is more than a simple PI case, consider a 170.6 or you're likely to be frustrated with her inability to understand the subject matter. She's not the brightest judge on the bench--not by a long shot.

Comment #: CA38328
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This judge is biased to no end. She looks for any small reason to deny justice to prose litigants. There should not be room for biased judges in our court rooms zero tolerance. She seems to be friendly with financially secure entities.