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:

    

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
Comments:
Pro government and pro institution, not so much pro no-name litigants. If you're up against a large corporation or the government, you will have a tough mountain to climb. He requires you to set hearings rather than submit on motion papers, requires blue backing when most of the courts in CA have dispensed with it; requires chambers copies the very next day despite e-filing; and cancels hearings at the last minute when he knows you've got a distance to go -- then takes papers on submission anyway.

On the other hand, is very strict on plaintiffs when it comes to personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. If an institutional party or a governmental party gets caught lying or misleading in the case, that's the death knell with him. He can be scholarly but generally expect to dot your I's and cross your T's with him.

He is courteous and appears even-handed. Seems he is happy where he is. There is no hint of any liberal or judicial activism in his rulings generally but there is sometimes an agenda flowing in an undercurrent. He is more conservative than most judges in CA so you know where most of his rulings are headed.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 21077
Rating:3.3
Comments:
Does not certify class actions. Refuses all requests for extensions of time, even when stipulated by both sides. Sets trial dates out 12 months from complaint filing date, even when the parties stipulate to a longer case schedule.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 13274
Rating:9.3
Comments:
Great judge who makes the legal system as efficient as can be. He is fair on evidence and treats each party equally. He is also not hesitent on granting motions for summary judgment, which is helpful when your client is spending lots of money to defend a meritless case.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 12683
Rating:2.9
Comments:
Despite clear controlling law and controlling statue on Actual Innocence and U.S. Attorney Malicious Prosecution, Judge Klausner is so pro-government that he put an Innocent man in prison for years. Even after the U.S. Attorney admitted under FRCP, Rule 36 that the man was inocent and they were conflicted, he refused to set him free. Judge Klausner did not even give the man a Evidentiary Heraing in a Habeas Corpus (28 USC 2255) action. Judge Klausner clearly breached his oath of office and violated his Constitutional Duties showing bias to the Government.

Litigant

Comment #: 12682
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Will railroad civil-rights plaintiffs (e.g. claims against government or major corporations). If you appeal what is an obvious railroading, your case will probably be intercepted in the 9th Circuit by judges friendly with Klausner and the appellate decision will be a terse rubber-stamp of Klausner's handiwork below.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 12067
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Although he tends to be polite, don't be fooled -- he's a terrible judge.

"ultra-conservative and intellectually dishonest" -- absolutely!!

Klausner decides matters based on who he thinks should prevail, regardless of the law, and will issue findings unsupported by the record.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 10182
Rating:9.3
Comments:
brilliant judge. agree very inflexible but is fair throughout

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 10158
Rating:4.0
Comments:
This judge ruled for me on summary judgment, and I was obviously happy for that. But he does not appear to be an intellectual "heavy weight" and he is the most inflexible judge I have ever seen when it comes to scheduling. Overall, I was not impressed.

Other

Comment #: 10026
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Klausner is very unfair; fails to listen to the defense. Disregards any requests by the parties, does not respect binding agreements. Overall, he is extremely right-wing. Almost always, rules maximum sentence!

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 9798
Rating:3.5
Comments:
This judge is biased and unfair; rarely listens to what the defense has to say; almost entirely leans toward the government, and even in cases where a below-the-guidelines sentencing recommendation is stipulated to in the plea agreement, this judge is VERY reluctant to respect the parties' agreement. If possible at all, make your plea agreements binding on the court, if you are in front of this guy. He is lazy, inflexible, doesn't follow the precedent, and is not interested in understanding complex issues. If you are trying a criminal case in front of him, be very confident in the outcome of the case, because this judge will slam your client up to the maximum at sentencing for exercising his constitutional rights.

Other

Comment #: 9307
Rating:10.0
Comments:
I have not been in front of Judge Klausner since the mid 70's but he was always fair and willing to listen to "your side of the story". I have always respected him and appreciate the guidance he gave a wild young man just getting out into the world.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 6885
Rating:9.8
Comments:
Excellent judge, all around. Consistent, fair, thoughtful. Does not like to grant continuances unless you have a very compelling need.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 6575
Rating:9.7
Comments:
He's very big on case management, and takes pride in efficiently getting cases through the docket. Unlike most judges, he issues his orders in a timely fashion.

He is also very fair in my experience.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 6542
Rating:9.7
Comments:
I agree with the last post. I have had only positive experiences with Judge Klausner, even though he has not always ruled in my favor. He is very intelligent and seems truly committed to preserving the integrity of the court (even if this means not necessarily winning friends along the way).

There is no question he is well respected by his peers. As to the comment below decrying his ability to handle complex litigation -- Judge Klausner was recently assigned one of the most complex patent cases ever litigated (Katz). The 9th Circuit panel responsible for assigning this lawsuit to Klausner obviously recognized his superior case management abilities.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 6540
Rating:9.9
Comments:
One of the most even-handed, thoughtful judges in the Central District. He may be tough, but he is fair and consistent.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 6425
Rating:8.9
Comments:
Opinions are usually fair, but not enough explanation. Very inflexible.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 6267
Rating:2.2
Comments:
Biased, inflexible and unwilling to accomodate attorneys even for basic courtesies. He fails to cite controlling authorities in opinions, though maybe he has dumb clerks. Regardless, the folks saying that this judge is "brilliant" apparently have a very low standard and/or are lacking in brilliance themselves.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 5954
Rating:1.1
Comments:
Unintelligent, ultra-conservative and intellectually dishonest.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: 5942
Rating:9.7
Comments:
A brilliant judge - extremely accomplished both as a federal judge and prior as a supervising judge. Respected across the board by his colleagues, both liberal and conservative alike, which led to an easy confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee back in 2002. Remains extremely conservative, which is probably why he draws the criticism of many of the posters here. Consistent in his rulings. Not very flexible.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 5852
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This pro-government dolt is not even a benchwarmer: he is so lazy he doesn't spend much time on the bench and truly is a nine-to-fiver. When he is on the bench he knows very little and relies almost entirely on his law clerks. He should have stayed on the state court bench where he could have hurt fewer people.

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: 5828
Rating:9.4
Comments:
Brilliant judge. Fair. Does not waste time

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 5824
Rating:2.5
Comments:
Has zero understanding of complex litigation. Terrible judge.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 5774
Rating:1.4
Comments:
This judge is unintelligent and has no common sense. He spent his entire legal career working for the government and is extremely pro-government. He is an example of the Peter Principle: he rose to his highest level of incompetence and remains there.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 5739
Rating:1.4
Comments:
Judge Klausner is a right-wing idiot. He does not understand the law, does not know how to apply the law to facts, and guesses which way is pro-government or pro-business or anti-civil rights, and then goes for the government, for business, or for law enforcement. But some times he gets confused and can't make a decision - when, for example, business is pitted against government. He is just a judicial mediocrity.

Civil Litigation - Private

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.