"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. Lauren Lofton

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA55086
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Lofton has an incredibly calm temperament. She is patient, polite, and kind to all parties. Overall, it is a pleasure to be in her courtroom.

Bias is unnoticeable on the surface, but over the duration of the unlawful detainer case, it is clear that the exceptions were always in favor of the tenants. A kitchen sink approach of unsubstantiated affirmative defenses that were contradictions within themselves combined with tenants that stopped paying and filed grievances with housing agencies after the Complaint was filed were all overlooked as the case dragged out 9 months.

Claims of uninhabitability that were not supported by the evidence were entertained to require a trial to determine credibility by jury. Tenants were not required to place money in an escrow account or continue to pay for occupancy as they intentionally dragged out proceedings. Tenants failed to meet discovery obligations and ignored the order to compel with little consequence.

Considering the timing of the case being just after Covid and the Appelate Court overturning Dodson's ruling on an unprepared pro se defendant, Lofton may have just been overly cautious to not give reason for appeal. Unfortunately, all the caution was at the landlord's expense.