The Robing Room

Hon. R. Gary Klausner	See Rating Details
District Judge	See Comments
C.D.Cal.
Average Rating:4.3 - 38 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)	* *
Confirm E-mail Address	* * *
Zip
Occupation
Add a comment only Ratings

*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=Chronic`y Late,10=Always on Time)
*Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation:	(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
*Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation:	(1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility In Scheduling	(1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail	(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Pre-Trial:	(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions:	(1=Least Involved,10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Trial:	(1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Sentencing:	(1=Most Lenient,10=Most Harsh)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators:	(1=10%,10=100%)
Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating

Comments

Please type what you see below:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. R. Gary Klausner

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: 35531
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
To call him' the honorable, would be an insult to other judges who guide the courts according to the highest judicial standard. Judge Klausner took on a case when he offered limited access to his courtroom. When I asked for video conferencing facilities to attend his conference hearing his clerk said he only does "in-person" hearings and no video conferencing. The Judge then went ahead with his in-person hearing and when I couldn't attend he closed my case for contempt. When I realized what he was doing I asked for change of venue. He denied change of venue and quickly closed my case down. Why did he hold onto this case....because he was protecting the corporates. The best defense would be to ask for the case to be reassigned before the case even starts. Unfortunately I did not know that.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 35523
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This guy actually works for the federal attorneys (DOJ), and does whatever they tell him to do. He doesn't even bother to think or reason. He is 100% unfair and 100% prejudiced against nongovernment parties. Horrible. Beyond unjust.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 35333
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Long overdue for retirement, this judge clings to power, ever willing to harm the innocent. His rulings are intended to strengthen the overwhelming power enjoyed by the government and its employees, of which he is one. He never allowed discussion. He never explained his outrageous rulings. Justice, fairness and honesty do not exist in his courtroom.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 35276
Rating:1.0

Comments:
R. Gary Klausner is maybe the SECOND WORST judge in LA history next to the late Manuel Real. How these guys ever got voted in is incredulous. I also blame R. Gary Klausner's clerks who handed down opinions like they were written by high school educated people. In my humble opinion, R. Gary Klausner represents the absolute worst in jurisprudence - he doesn't listen or want to listen to simple case facts.

This guy gets a 1/10 rating.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 34671
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Every lawyer knows that even when he has a perfect case, a case with undisputed facts that lead to only one legal conclusion, there is still a wild card that can mess up everything – the judge. This is the true story of how 4 federal judges screwed up a man's life just because they could.
I represented people claiming benefits under their employer's life, health, and disability insurance plans. The benefits are governed by a federal law known as ERISA and disputed claims are usually tried in federal courts without juries. My last case, Alves v. Hewlett-Packard, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6214 (9th Cir. 2022), was a “perfect case.” The law was clear; a person who cannot sit for more than 4 hours in an 8 hour workday is unable to perform a sedentary job, a job requiring the least amount of physical ability.1 The other side's internist, a Dr. Broomes, found that Mr. Alves could only sit for, at most, 4 hours in an 8 hour workday. Clearly, Mr. Alves was disabled as a matter of law.
The case was assigned to the Hon. Gary Klausner, a district court judge for the Central District of California. In deciding that Alves was not disabled, Klausner came to the idiotic conclusion that “30 minutes per hour” of sitting ability could reasonably mean “that Plaintiff can sit for 30 minutes, get up for 5 minutes, and then sit down for the final 25 minutes.” Alves v. Hewlett Packard 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85754, at *12 (C.D. Cal. 2021). 30 minutes per hour, according to the judge, really meant 55 minutes per hour.
I appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There, a three judge panel made up of Justices Forrest, Lee, and Ikuta decided, without oral argument, that Mr. Alves was not entitled to a disability benefit because he was not disabled. The case was decided on the briefs alone. The panel (Forrest, Lee, and Ikuta) issued a memorandum decision, an unsigned decision that does not have to explain its reasoning. The author could have been one of the three judges, a law clerk, a law student, or who knows who. The decision said, “We reject Alves’s argument that [the denial] decision is undercut by Dr. Stephen Broomes’s conclusion that Alves was limited to sitting continuously for 30 minutes per hour” because the diagnoses would not “preclude Alves from performing sedentary work.” Alves v. Hewlett-Packard, 2022 U.S.App. LEXIS 6214, at *2. No legal authority was cited for this statement because it is total bull. The law is clear, “[T]he 'consistent' interpretation of 'ERISA law' [is] that an individual is unable to perform 'any occupation' under a disability policy if that individual 'cannot sit for more than four hours in an eight-hour workday.'" McCool v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 842 F. App'x 164, 164 (9th Cir. 2021). Sitting up to 30 minutes per hour for 8 hours can never equal more than 4 hours even if a federal judge says otherwise. The decision was flawed on its face.
I filed a motion for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. The first asks the panel (Forrest, Lee, and Ikuta) to correct its errors. The second asks the whole 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to correct a mistake at odds with prior decisions of the court. The 3 panel judges refused to change their decision even though by this time they must have known that they were wrong. As for the 9th Circuit as a whole, not a single judge voted to review the decision. And so the case ended.
Mr. Alves will not be receiving his disability benefit. The safety net promised to him by Hewlett-Packard for his years of work dissolved to nothing when he needed it. He will live the remainder of his life financially challenged to a degree he never anticipated all because 4 federal judges ignored facts and law and decided to screw him.
How could our judicial system leave a man, covered by all the insurance his employer offered its employees, in such a pitiable state? All 4 of the judges involved knew that Mr. Alves could not sit for more than 4 hours. They also knew that he had swollen legs that he had to keep elevated when sitting, that he had congestive heart failure and sleep apnea, and that he could not walk across a room without losing his breath. All 4, after all of the briefing, must have known the law. Thus, each knew that Mr. Alves was entitled to the disability benefit. Clearly the object of all of the judges was to deny Alves his benefits regardless of the facts and the law. To screw up someone's life just because you can is pure evil. Judges Klausner, Ikuta, Lee, and Forrest should not be judges.
Why would a judge deny a deserving person disability benefits? Each of the 4 named judges should answer the question. To date, the only explanation from the 3 circuit judges is an unsigned non-explanatory flawed-on-its-face wrong-on-the-law decision. The district court judge, Klausner, has a problem with simple arithmetic or, as more probable from his judicial record, a problem with disabled people.2 As for Judge Lee, he has a history of always denying ERISA benefits for no articulated reason. He has been on a 3 judge panel for 6 ERISA benefit cases. Five affirmed district court decisions to deny ERISA benefits and one reversed a decision to grant benefits.3 All 6 decisions are memorandum decisions (unreasoned and unsigned). While we do not know the reasons each particular judge decided to buck the law, there is one reason, I believe, common to all 4 of these judges.
Mr. Alves did not matter to them. Like you and me, he is a nobody. He is not a celebrity, not wealthy, not politically involved. His case was not a news maker. The 3 circuit judges didn't even want oral argument. They didn't want to waste their valuable time on his claim. His legal rights didn't matter to them. They just didn't care.
While a memorandum decision cannot be cited as a legal precedent, the Alves case clearly shows that judges can and do ignore precedent and come to decisions contrary to the law via memorandum decisions. They can do whatever they want to do.
Clearly a judge should be totally neutral in a lawsuit. We do not want a judge's politics, religion, way of life, sexual preference, health, taste in clothes, or grandchildren to compromise his neutrality. We expect a judge to dispense justice equally to all. What happened to Mr. Alves reveals a major problem with American justice. Too many judges are unfit for the job.
If this pisses you off, please feel free to pass this on. If you question the truth, read the decisions and check the references in the endnotes.
Charles J. Fleishman, erisa@erisarights.com, 818-348-0029.

1. More than 4 hours of sitting ability in an 8 hour workday is required for a sedentary job. Vertigan v. Halter 260 F.3d 1044, 1052 (9th Cir.
2001); Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 1033, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2001); Armani v.
Northwestern, 840 F.3d 1159 (9thCir. 2016); Cruz-Baca v. Edison Int'l Long Term
Disability Plan, 708 Fed. Appx. 313 (9th Cir. 2017); Wagenstein v. Cigna Life Ins. Co.,
789 Fed. Appx. 591 (9th Cir. 2020); McCool v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 842 Fed. Appx.
164 (9th Cir. 2021); Rios v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 38138 (9th
Cir., Dec 27. 2021).
2. Mull v. Motion Picture Indus. Health Plan, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135347 (C.D. Cal. 2017); McCutcheon v. Hartford, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61998 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Stewart v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist LEXIS 98342 (C.D. Cal. 2006); Randall v. UNUM, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111916 (C.D. Cal. 2011); Minassian v. AIG, 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 48462 (C.D. Cal. 2010); McCool v. LINA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224392 (C.D. Cal. 2018); Jarvis v. Seafarers Pension Plan, 2019 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 227559 (C.D. Cal. 2019); Unity Courier Serv. V. Hudson Ins. Co., 2019 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 151566 (C.D. Cal. 2019).
3. Demko v. UNUM, 780 F.App'x 537 (9th Cir. 2019); Sides v. Cisco, 2021 U.S.App LEXIS 35734 (9th Cir. 2021); Alves v. Hewlett-Packard, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6214 (9th Cir. 2022); Goodman v. Motion Picture Indus. Health Plan, 856 F.App'x 136 (9th Cir. 2021); Odd v. Delta Air Lines, 809 F.App'x 402 (9th Cir. 2020); Estate of Maurrice v. LINA, 792 F.App'x 499 (9th Cir. 2020).

Other

Comment #: 34616
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
As a former California paralegal, reading the comments here gives me great concern. If a sitting Federal Judge receives so many reports of dishonorable behavior should receive a serious review by the sitting directors who put him there. Where is the accountability?

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 34350
Rating:1.0

Comments:
He twists the law to support his sick opinion

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 32998
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Been practicing over 25 years, 75% in federal courts. It is unimaginable that this man sits as a federal judge. A traffic commissioner . . . maybe. He totally backs government, and goes well out of his way to ensure them victory. He needs to go.

Other

Comment #: 32875
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Klausner must resign. He is biased and unfair. He makes decision based on his personal feelings not facts or the truth. He takes pride that a he is stubborn and makes up his mind before trial. He is definitely an idiot and should resign.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: 25150
Rating:2.2

Comments:
Judge Gary Klausner should resign. He does not listen to both sides, but takes the side of the corporation most of the time. This is the problem with many of the U.S. District Court judges appointed by Republicans - they will side with the corporations most of the time. America is no longer a country I love - it's run completely and solely by the corporations with their stool pidgeons in high office and behind the robe.

Other

Comment #: 23583
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
The entertainment industry is making the court to be a 3 dog night joke with the Led Zeppelin plagiarism accusation. The song in question is not much more than an "Old Fashioned Love Song". There was a case quite some time ago with Jefferson Starship people NOT wanting new personnel to keep the name "Jefferson Starship". Well Randy California is probably NOT his real name either! There was a claim that a band's last/fatal mistake would be to appear in San Francisco. The song in question is supposedly by someone calling themselves "Spirit" . . . but NOW they want material compensation. The songs in question were never contested by creators during their mutual 'living' existence on Earth. The songs in question are reworked from descending to climbing scales with loads and loads of working around them . . . with the original making cameo appearances. It is surely NOT plagiarism. It's 'an old fashioned love song' like with Monteverdi, Bach, Offenbach, Handel, etc.. Definitely NOT stolen. And definitely music kissing with music . . . an old fashioned love song. The entertainment industry toys with the Constitution by getting free press. A group from Australia (Three Dog Night) did a song just exactly about this. You see, there is a lot of bitch-I-ness in life. And musicians are NOT immune to sniping at one another. Three Dog Night might have taken some shots . . . but the principals in the "question" (Page & 'California') were acquaintances a few times. And the "question" NEVER arose. That's because this is an intellectual property and the work is an old fashioned love song. You should dismiss and tell the boys that they've all gotten older now and interest has faded in how these "old fashioned love songs" should be played out.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 21953
Rating:4.3

Comment #: 4964
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
To say this one is not the sharpest knife in the drawer would be dangerous because he does too much damage. He is as dumb and as lazy as they come. He doesn't understand federal practice at all, and all his work is done by his law clerks. Thus the outcome of any given trial depends on kids one year out of law school.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 4363
Rating:1.6

Comments:
Reversed on civil rights case where he granted summary judgment to defendants. He did not understand the evidence or the law.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 4331
Rating:4.5

Comments:
Generally no oral argument of motions. Onerous pretrial rules. Attorneys in state court were ecstatic when he was elevated to federal bench, i.e., no longer presiding over their cases. Has a reputation for granting civil defendant motions to dismiss. Not where you want to be, but there are worse in Central District. Pleasant demeanor.

Add your own rating

Ratings

What others have said about Hon. R. Gary Klausner