"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Carrie A. Zepeda	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Santa Clara County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 2.2 - 10 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 3.0 - 18 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. Carrie A. Zepeda

Comments

Court Staff

Comment #: CA54284
Rating:3.0

Comments:
I’m a retired court employee. I was in Zepeda’s court often but never as a litigant or party to a case. I believe she is a very nice and pleasant person who has issues with women or against women. I feel like most Judges will have decisions we will disagree with with but Zepeda appears to have numerous ones in which many court employees would question… for bias against women, the poor, and the self represented. But mostly mom’s. She tries hard to settle cases but could take safety into consideration more in doing so. This is the only judge in my 20 years with the court I’ve commented on. I felt compelled to say something and hope that she will watch for this bias in the future.

Litigant

Comment #: CA52810
Rating:9.0

Comments:
judge listen everything and asked questions, very professionally explained her order.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA52244
Rating:2.0

Comments:
Highly biased to Men. [Redacted by Ed.] Takes notes when male attorneys speak. Derides female counsel. Zeppeda was instrumental in the killing of a young Hispanic plumber and Zeppeda was ruthless in causing his death at the hands of Kaiser. Extremely Dumb thinka doctors are infallible. Does not let court reporter appear.

Other

Comment #: CA42750
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Lack of attention to court procedures clearly stated on the court website.

Biased against women and favors ruling for the male party.

She does not read the pleadings, and makes up rules. No point in paying for an attorney except for one that will spew any garbage out.

She made up her mind before she even heard the case. Her orders are overly broad inappropriate and poorly thought out.

She is a wild card and attorney's who will take any meritless cases love to be in her court room cause they have good chance to win.

Court orders violates first amendment rights, are overly broad and extreme.

Bases decisions on personal experience/bias/what she feels/rather than the law.

Does not allow ample time to present or cross examine since her mind is made up upon entering the court room.

Very disorganized. Rude. All over the place.

Incompetent and should be removed from the bench.

Agree with every low rating, especially Comment #: CA18774, Comment #: CA30853, and, Comment #: CA19213.

Litigant

Comment #: CA42548
Rating:2.0

Comments:
This judge granted a TRO against me and then threw it out months later because it was filed by a person who wasn’t allowed to file it. I filed for attorneys fees based off of that expense and she chose to just close it and disregard any damages she caused by granting it in the first place. Just another example of how absolutely worthless our judiciary is here in silicon valley. She is a joke but nobody is laughing. Avoid her but good luck because Judge Pegg is equally bad or worse.

Litigant

Comment #: CA38506
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Watch out for this judge! She makes up her own rules as she goes. During our trial she made the rule that we were not allowed to discuss our divorce in any way as evidence because it has nothing to do with the case. Yet, she allowed for my ex to have his divorce lawyer testify that he overpaid me alimony? With her, your best bet is to play victim. Any smart ass comment (which I ignorantly did), and she will have it out for you.

Litigant

Comment #: CA38477
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This woman had absolute disdain for me prior to even hearing me speak. She encouraged my accuser to continue with her lies against me when she thought to dispose the case because she could not fight the evidence my lawyer was to bring forth. This woman is a danger to men who are victims of abuse by the court system. The case was eventually disposed, no thanks to this evil woman. She will ruin lives if continued to go unchecked. She should be removed for her clear bias towards defendants, particularly men. She even suggested I was intimidating or coercing my accuser to drop the case. She is a vile human.

Other

Comment #: CA31800
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She never read my response,nor did she address any statements that I made. It was extremely clear that her mind was made up before hearing my case. I'm 56 years old. Never been charged with any kind of violence in any way. My Father was a Deputy Sheriff and my Mother was a Court Clerk. It is sad to lose your RIGHTS for 3 years because you use words to Express your hurt and anger.i never have used or threatened violence in any way. I will find an attorney who will take my case. She has no right to be on the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA30853
Rating:1.6

Comments:
She appeared to pre-judge the case before hearing the evidence and then viewed the evidence through that bias and it was almost impossible to change her mind. Her general temperament is very unpleasant and she barely conceals her distaste for whichever side she prejudged the case against. Some of her evidentiary rulings on questions and documents were mind boggling.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA28151
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Avoid at all costs!R

Litigant

Comment #: CA28058
Rating:9.0

Comments:
At least, she listen all my arguments and was very polite. Then she explained her order point by point. I don't count small procedure issues. She looks like HUMAN

Other

Comment #: CA23910
Rating:10.0

Comments:
I just turned 19 and I had my first jury duty summons. Never done it before and was a bit anxious and scared. No one ever talked nicely because of it and I actually was sworn in for my first time. During the questioning one of the attorneys asked an innocent question that turned deeply personal. My father actually died a few months ago and it was related to that. There aren’t enough words in the English language to describe what she did for me and how she consoled me after having a mental breakdown. While I cannot speak on how she is as a judge as I was only there for 2 days, I can speak to the fact she impacted my life so positively for the rest of my life that I am forever grateful now. I look forward to my next summons and hope to see her again in the future.

Litigant

Comment #: CA21505
Rating:10.0

Comments:
Judge Zepeda is a wonderful judge, very fair, very logical. My former landlord appealed my win in small claims court for my security deposit back and not only did she uphold the lower court's ruling but she also awarded me damages for bad faith retention of my security deposit. I wouldn't have considered it a win if I didn't get awarded statutory damages since it was completely a frivolous appeal with no new evidence and the landlord just wanted to delay paying me. Thank you Judge Zepeda, all anyone can ever ask for from a judge is a fair hearing and you will definitely be getting that from this judge.

Litigant

Comment #: CA20561
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I wish I could give a -1 for this joke masquerading as a judge. Carrie Zepeda is dumber than dumb.
- She FORGOT to have the parties sworn in under oath until 1.5 hours into testimony.
- Had to wait numerous times for the judge to read and interpret civil code when it was presented as part of an exhibit. Simple code concepts in layman's terms.
- Refused evidence because "It's too late. We're not going to take time to go through this".
- Contradicted herself when she wrote up her ruling "Plaintiff found to be an independent contractor AND an outside sales rep of the company." Also termed the "independent contractor" as an employee in subsequent language.

If she is assigned to your case, IMMEDIATELY REQUEST ANOTHER JUDGE!!! Carrie should be removed from the bench.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA19213
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I worked on a complex civil matter in Judge Zepeda’s Santa Clara courtroom over a year ago, I just had a flashback to her as I was advising a client on another matter. She is dumber than a frozen turkey. I’m not convinced that she is fuctionally literate. Read some of her Statements of Decision and you will see what I mean. Also, she seems to take breaks frequently and is constantly chirping about all the other matters on her plate. A two day trial could take you a week or two with Carrie Zepeda. Anytime a Judge starts mentioning how much other business they have, my ears perk up...it’s a clear sign of a lazy elected hack judge...add in stupid, and you get Carrie Zepeda Madrid. This can benefit some litigants as previously stated. If you need a wild card, she is your woman.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA18774
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Two words that should always be applied by a good lawyer to a case assigned to Carrie Zepeda: Peremptory Challenge. If Carrie Zepeda is assigned to your case you will have no ability to predict the likelihood of prevailing at trial because she has no guiding principle, no coherent method of running a trial, doesn't seem to have any sort of moral compass, and wouldn't recognize justice if she sat on it. This woman is an absolute mess and disgrace, and why Santa Clara tolerates her is absolutely beyond comprehension. Lawyers know how stupid she is, so be careful if you have a slam-dunk case, a good lawyer can beat a slam-dunk with Zepeda. I am warning you, run for the hills if you get this judge.

Other

Comment #: CA18704
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
She made a huge mistake by issuing an order against innocent party today. She wasn't interested in learning the whole story and just sided very quickly. She already made up her mind so she didn't allow the defending attorney to ask the questions. If she allowed those to be asked, she would have thought differently. Not a very intelligent to be a judge. She is not fitted to be a judge if she doesn't allow people to present their side of the story.

Litigant

Comment #: CA15092
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Run for the hills if you ever get this judge. My ex husband lied through his teeth to win this case and she bought it hook line and sinker. 99% of my evidence was thrown out and she awarded him $77,555 for calling him a transvestite at a mediation and I never even used social media to slander him. He claimed that and a tracking device put him in a depression. I understand for my actions, I should be punished so I accept that, but I live paycheck to paycheck and for whatever reason she thought I was raking in money from my divorce. He got his lawyer to say my ex was paying me too much in alimony and he got it reduced, but I haven’t gotten alimony since early 2015. The therapist stated it took her one day to diagnose him with depression. My ex admitted the tracking device was on there for 2 days and he knew it was me. Anyway, I know she based her decision with the thought that I was one of those women taking advantage of a man in a divorce and she wanted to prove a point. Nothing more than that. The pain of this financial loss is being worked through and I am thankful it is over, If you go before this judge, make sure you have a lawyer that is capable of changing his/ strategy on a dime. Watch for this during your trial and make damn sure you make it be known that you don’t have the funds she may think you have.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA14466
Rating:1.5

Comments:
Does not understand the law, practice, procedure or trials in the civil arena. Terrible assignment to the civil calendar as personally experienced and reported by others. One of the most close minded, impersonal and uneducated judges I have ever seen on this County's bench.

Other

Comment #: CA13458
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I agree with these comments - Zepeda should be removed from the Bench- victims beware.............. I am sad to see she is still on the bench..................

Litigant

Comment #: CA13455
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Zapeda does not know any law, extremely toxic in justice, helping criminals - attorneys hid material evidences; enjoy flush justice into toilet' pure actor in color of law; absolute insult to judicial system; a clown in bench to presiding injustice; disaster who would ruin your life; May God have MERCY on her soul if she has one to face her crime toward her victim.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA10779
Rating:9.6

Comments:
This judge handled a pro se litigant with great skill and intelligence. I

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA10686
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This "Judge" is a complete and utter useless mess and waste of tax payer money. Carrie Zepeda has the brain power of a wet log. She is a joke. Avoid at all costs.

Litigant

Comment #: CA7067
Rating:9.0

Comments:
She was fair and made a judgement that was consistent with what was presented. Her judicial demeanor was even-handed and appropriate for the matter at hand. Judge Zepeda is a very good judge.
I read comment that lowly rate Judge Zepeda, sorry things didn't go your way, but don't lash out at the judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6531
Rating:1.0

Comments:
She should not be called a Judge. She needs to be investigated by higher authorities. She is a dark spot in American Justice system that needs to be removed, at least from Civil litigation cases.

Other

Comment #: CA6525
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
trouble honoring the truth even if it's right in front of her. ASAP Needs to be dishonored and removed ASAP what comes around goes around too many truths about her are known facts, she is an insult to law seriously we all know who is judge over her.

Litigant

Comment #: CA5939
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I agree with the last comments - Carrie Zepeda should be removed from the bench. I was hit by a car while in a crosswalk,have pain every day and will eventually require a knee replacement. Defense filed a last min motion in limine and prevented my treating Doctor from testifying regarding knee replacement. Carrie refused to let the jury decide on all the evidence - She choose the evidence which only helped the defendant (the insurance company). She ruled there would be no knee replacement testimony and then did not call a mis trial when the defense counsel violated the order by stating " so what you mean by no intervension is that plaintiff will not require a knee placement in the future". Carrie Zepeda is pro insurance company anti justice. I ended up with $6000 for the loss of my active life and a screwed up knee which will require replacement in the future....... Carrie Zepeda was more concerned with the jury having a good time than justice for the injured. She needs to be removed !

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA5938
Rating:2.3

Comments:
Vindictive, mercurial, capricious and utterly ignorant about civil law. If she was in private practice I would not trust her to competently handle any matter entrusted to her. She is a walking case study of political connections trumping competence.

Litigant

Comment #: CA2824
Rating:1.0

Comments:
This person does not deserve to be referred to as “Honorable” – she is not. She is biased, vicious and vindictive. She does not know the law and doesn't care about justice. Dishonest attorneys can easily mislead her because of her lack of understanding of the law and civil procedure. She believes that if an attorney says something it is the truth. When she is shown that a witness (an attorney) on the stand has lied she does not consider that to be perjury. She has no moral or ethical compass and will prejudge everything without allowing any evidence that could conflict with her preconceptions. Avoid at all costs.

Litigant

Comment #: CA2821
Rating:1.0

Comments:
F She does not understand her role as a judge or the law - avoid at all costs!

Litigant

Comment #: CA2423
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Not competent to sit on the bench.
Does not know the law or care about it. Incredibly biased - typically against defendants.
Excludes evidence and witnesses without any basis.
Avoid at all costs.

Litigant

Comment #: CA2421
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Not competent