Hon. Christina A. Snyder See Rating Details
District Judge See Comments
C.D.Cal.  
Average Rating:6.4 - 16 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



What others have said about Hon. Christina A. Snyder


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 24197
Rating:6.5
Comments:
I have very mixed feelings on Judge Snyder. While her rulings are fairly detailed, (as one poster here mentioned) it is clear that they are drafted by her clerks (who pass notes during oral argument) and that they really run the show in her courtroom. And, while she will listen to oral argument, they are little more than an exercise in futility because she will almost certainly stick with what her clerks drafted for her.

She is VERY flexible, which can be both good and bad, depending on what you are asking her for. She does not put up roadblocks for continuing trials, unlike some draconian federal judges, and will often go the extra mile by setting status conferences to follow up on issues that arise in your case. At the same time, however, she seems to have trouble putting her foot down when the occasion calls for it.

In my most recent case before her, we had a pro se litigant who failed to participate in the case in any reasonable manner (failing to respond to discovery or show up to several depositions), which ended up with three different motions to compel, and two terminating sanctions motions in her court. Nonetheless, she continued to bend over backwards to give the litigant chance after chance, even when it was clear that she was more interested in the case continuing than the litigant was. She also denied a motion to dismiss a cause of action on the grounds that she read the facts in the case to assert a cause of action that was not even hinted at in the complaint. Therefore, it would be wise to tailor your motions to include arguments that the other party does not even consider (if that is possible), especially when they are in pro per.

Overall, while I appreciate the fact that she is much more flexible than most judges in the Central District, this flexibility can sometimes prove to be a hindrance rather than an asset.

Litigant

Comment #: 23495
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This Judge has discriminatorily and continually dismissed my pro se complaint in the Central Division District Court three times in a row with leave to amend. Her arguement is essentially, i have not stated a valid claim. My rights were violated i seek relief or demand for jury trial. I have a right to a fair and speedy trial. This judge wont even let me submit the complaint.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 23494
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Had her research students do her work for her, who sit off to the side tittering and passing notes during motion hearings. They granted a summary judgment against my client that I had to appeal and reverse. The only fun I had in her courtroom was asking for clarifications on her tentative, which she obviously hadn't written or even read, and didn't understand.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 22962
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Judge Snyder is a wonderful judge. She is highly intelligent, courteous and hard working. She issues her rulings promptly and they are always clear, well-researched and reflect true scholarship on her part.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 21293
Rating:9.8
Comments:
Judge Snyder is super-intelligent, very hardworking, polite to counsel, reliable, diligent and just a pleasure to appear before. She is the model of what a judge should be! I can't say enough good things about her.

Litigant

Comment #: 18589
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Judge Snyder was wise and fair throughout the entire case. Even the rulings that did not go in my favor were still honest, well thoughtout and again fair. I and the entire state of California are blessed to have a wonderful judge, such as Judge Synder sitting on the bench.

Sincerely, Jazan Wild

Litigant

Comment #: 12791
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Synder is right out of the Scottsboror Boys. In two different cases, she made two diametrically opposite rulings to favor the wealthy defendants (same defendants - rulings 3 months apart), a statutory, Cal. V.C. sec. 22851(b) exemption to lien was cited to her 12 times and ignored by her 12 times when she found that personal property is subject to a sec. 22851(a) lien (no - it is not) while also ignoring 43 Ninth Circuit authority and Supreme Court decisions supporting the pro se plaintiff AND it was repeatedly pointed out to this woman that rulings she claimed to have previously made were NEVER made - she ignored that also! Finally, observing Synder in court, both her tremors and demeanor suggests (the author was Chief, Neuropsychological Assessor, at one time) the possibility of psychosis. Her rulings would fit squarely in any Iranian court or Third World country run by a guy wearing a pointy hat and mirrored sunglasses. A black man representing himself in her courtroom should just try to get a refund on his filing fee and call it a day. Really. In the very first paper filed by Los Angeles' deputy city attorney, he informed Snyder he was Jewish like her, an Observant Jew at that. True. The woman is corrupt, rules based on ethnicity and her belief that she can start a campfire with a wet sponge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 8593
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She defensed us in an FTCA civil rights trial. It was a case in which decedent was shot in the back. An amazingly bad verdict. The police had no defense, I don't think the the government truly believed its own witness. She did not seem to be paying attention during key testimony. This was a gutless decision on her part. It can only be explained by politics.

Other

Comment #: 6497
Rating:9.0
Comments:
She is definitely one of the few good judges left. But she is a woman that is very sensitive to difficult cases that are hard to digest, especially if they involve women. But at the end of the day, no matter how fair she tries to be (and is), like all federal judges, she goes along with the prosecutor. She allows severe perjury in her courtroom, as well as vulgar physical mockery of the defendant. I should know: she wrongly convicted me of a felony without knowing many things.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 5625
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This previously-competent judge seems to have fallen over the edge. She has become biased, cranky, and uneven. There has been a radical sea-change in her temperament and demeanor. She is short, impatient, and biased in favor of the government. The rumor is that she is unwell, and if that is the case, she needs to take some time off. She has begun to abuse attorneys who appear before her, and that is a radical departure from her prior persona.

Other

Comment #: 5624
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I don't understand this judge at all. I have a friend who declared bankruptcy and she keeps removing the case to her own court and then making rulings on the case that even a non-lawyer can see and understand are contrary to hornbook law. Her decisions get reversed by the 9th circuit and she seems undaunted. She seems nice enough and like so many point out here, has a good temperament. But, at the end of the day, her attitude is: "I'm a federal judge and I can do what I want." So try not to annoy her or you can forget about whatever the law says.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 5323
Rating:9.0
Comments:
I am a civil litigator who was a plaintiff in a case in Judge Snyder's courtroom. To put it bluntly, she's an excellent judge. She expeditiously digested complex issues and made nuanced, fair rulings. During trial, she swiftly shot down all attempts at gamesmanship. I would gather that she has an intimate understanding of the post-trial effects of her rulings. I vehemently disagreed with one of them (but I believe I see why it was done). Further, she is very courteous. After the trial and appellate process were completely concluded, I would run into her in the hallway and she'd greet me kindly. Lastly, she gets the prize for being the best-dressed judge in the courthouse.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 4975
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Snyder is intelligent, even-handed and industrious. She understands injustice and strives to prevent it. I've done numerous trials in front of her, and it is a delight to be in her courtroom. She is a judge's judge who does her job well and with dispatch. She is an example for other judges to follow. She overcomes great physical discomfort to sit on the bench but does not take it out on lawyers, and it in no wise impairs her performance.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 4723
Rating:4.5
Comments:
In trial makes inexplicable errors in simple evidence rulings; changes rulings during trial from morning to afternoon; seems physically uncomfortable during proceedings (back discomfort?); had difficulty digesting unusual legal issues and authority.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 3596
Rating:8.7
Comments:
I tried two cases in front of her, and I thought she was fair and patient. She didn't allow the parties to waste time, but allowed us the opportunity to put on our cases. My only critique is that she didn't really rule on most of the motions in limine (they were "denied without prejudice"), but in the end that worked out in my clients' favor in both cases.