"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Martha K Gooding	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Orange County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 5.2 - 7 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 2 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

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. Martha K Gooding

Comments

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA52871
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Too racist, white supramacist judge full of implicit bias against blacks.
Zero rating

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA38809
Rating:2.8

Comments:
This Judge came from Federal practice and still has difficulty interpreting and applying Cal. Civil Code and Procedure. She wants to run her court like a federal district judge. She confused the arguments on my motion, and could not comprehend the layers of legal analysis required to get to the proper ruling. Instead she jumped to conclusions using selective portions of the law and misapplying it. She makes her decision how the matter should resolve and piece-meals the facts and law to reach what she believes is a logical conclusion. When politely corrected as to misstated law and the subsequent analysis, she blamed the research attorney's notes she was working from. It was questionable whether she even reviewed the actual motion, opposition and reply.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA37703
Rating:7.0

Comments:
I once held Judge Gooding in very high regard. Always imagined shed be sent across the street to the District Court one day. Her legal acumen and industriousness cannot be questioned. During the pandemic, however, the quality of work deteriorated. Rulings became inconsistent and shortcuts were taken. This made settlement a necessity as trial approached for fear of evidentiary and in limine rulings consistent with prior motion rulings, which would have greatly prejudiced our case. Still one of the better judges in CJC. But the latest matter I had before her was completely derailed and rulings became very inconsistent.

Litigant

Comment #: CA36529
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge insists on note taking while critical testimony is being provided; this is inherently a dangerous practice when your job is to listen, not write. This proved to be a disaster in my case, her ruling was absolutely void of critical legal points, the opposing party was caught numerous times lying/impeached and she found in their favor on all counts! Her findings noted irrelevant information and made no comments on actual findings of fact. She is HORRIBLE. Take a pass on this Judge, if you need fair and reason, not your Judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA33013
Rating:5.4

Comments:
Was unprepared and blamed counsel for not sending a courtesy copy. She tried the wing it, instead.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA32648
Rating:9.0

Comments:
Judge Gooding is an industrious and pleasant trial judge. We did a virtual Webex trial before her during COVID-19 in Oct, 2020. It was an accounting matter which lent itself well to a virtual format, and Judge Gooding was willing to try something new. It went reasonably well with few technical difficulties, giving me optimism that this type of virtual trial format could realistically be the way of the future for appropriate cases. To his credit, my opposing counsel worked well with me to streamline the trial. The judge took good notes during the trial and issued a well written and comprehensive decision afterward. Would not hesitate to use Judge Gooding in the future for a bench trial.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA32353
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I have been in practice for 38 years and during the COVID-19 pandemic, on four court-days notice, she sent out an email and set a "pre-MSC conference." I inadvertently overlooked the email when it came in and was in a mediation the morning of the pre-MSC conference and after my mediation, unfortunately about 3 hours after the hearing, saw the email and immediately called the court. I was informed that she issued an OSC regarding monetary sanctions against me personally for $250. I was told she would not take the OSC off calendar. Opposing counsel said she is a stickler for rules. I filed my declaration and contacted the clerk to see if the motion would be taken off calendar but was told no, she will read my declaration and talk to me about it at the hearing. Inadequate notice, lack of due process. Complete disregard for civility putting her "rules" ahead of everything else.

Litigant

Comment #: CA21067
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She mistepped her authority; She caused additional legal time to try to cover herself up; She tried to block standard procedure from occurring and then denied it happened only to change her mind after threat of an appeal which would harm what I understand her desire to become a higher ranking judgeship appointment; This caused additional tens of thousands of dollars for both sides; She didn't even take into account the circumstances/facts and has caused a long time OC successful business to go down hill. In fact, she said she didn't care----money is no reason to stop what I'm doing (to paraphrase).

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA16237
Rating:7.5

Comments:
When her law clerks are wrong in their tentatives, she will read the papers and come to the reasonable conclusion based on the controlling decisions. She is not inflexible.

Other

Comment #: CA16125
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Terrible and unfair. She made ruling based on the defendant's lies without any actual evidence.
The judgement is ridiculous.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA9485
Rating:3.6

Comments:
Very smart yet extremely stubborn and technical. Her courtroom is unlike any other in Orange County. She treats the new demurrer meet and confer requirement unlike any other judge. She spends time writing the tentative rulings and has been proven wrong numerous time in court, yet refuses to change her mind even when it is so obvious, even to courtroom observers that she is wrong. Sadly, she is smart enough that she realizes she is wrong but just refuses to admit such mistakes.