Comment #: CA54924
Rating:8.0
Comments:
I am a domestic violence victim who was sued in civil court by her abuser. Although this judge let this meritless case go on for 4 1/2 years. In the end, he could see through all the lies and inconsistencies of my abuser and his law firm. There is now as of January 1, 2023 a law that helps DV victims and judges prove that abusers filing claims against their victims are vexatious. I hope Judge Garza will remember this for others moving forward.

Comment #: CA53263
Rating:3.0
Comments:
Had a 5 day court trial representing an employee truck driver for a trucking company seeking unpaid wages. The trucking company provided the truck, dictated everything including the training, routes, fuel stops, maintenance, where the truck could be parked, start and stop times, when the customer would be called, literally everything. Judge Garza decided the employee was an independent contractor because the trucking company made him sign a document saying that he was an IC and because he was paid on a per route basis not an hourly basis. Judge Garza thinks there is a part "D" to the "ABC" test and that part "D" overrules "AB&C". Judge Garza thinks the part "D" to the ABC test is "did the hired person assume a business risk?" Stunningly bad decision.

Comment #: CA49103
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Garza lost all credibility with me today when he blocked Chino Valley school districts requirements that parents be called when a child expresses interest in a gender change at school.
So, apparently, Democrats think that all parents will beat their child to death at home if they find out they want to change their gender. That is not the case. That would be an exception to the rule, and that could be handled properly.
This is a very big mistake by Judge Garza against the will of the mothers and families. judge Garza is also a hypocrite because if it was happening to his child he’d want to know right away.

Comment #: CA41007
Rating:9.5
Comments:
Judge Tom Garza is patient with litigants and attorneys, courteous, and well prepared. Perhaps a little too willing to accommodate unprepared parties seeking delays.

Comment #: CA40325
Rating:9.4
Comments:
Judge Garza is always very courteous to all litigants in front of him, attorneys and pro per. He isn't swayed by attorneys trying to be overly deferent or arrogant. He seems to grasp issues very quickly and well. Overall a very good judge and a pleasure to appear in front of.

Comment #: CA33695
Rating:9.4
Comments:
The son of one of the County's best lawyers, Judge Garza learned civility and ethics from the best. He is patient, compassionate and fair. Enjoy this judge; don't expect to find many others who make you as proud of our profession and judicial system.

Comment #: CA6196
Rating:4.1
Comments:
The plaintiff testified to an out of court statement not made by the plaintiff as to mediation. I objected to the statement as heresay and against public policy.

Judge responded: overruled, plaintiff has personal knowledge.

I asked to be heard and he refused.

Comment #: CA5668
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Judge Thomas Garza failed abide by the legal requirements for the appointment of a discovery referee: Statutory Authority, Specifically Code of Civil Procedures 639, which sets forth the legal requirements and findings that a judge must make before requiring any party to spend or borrow money for the payment of a discovery referee, for the purpose of the plaintiff obtaining documents for deposition which had previously been ordered to be turned over to the plaintiff's attorney. Rather then order the defendants attorneys to comply to his previous orders to turn over documents, Judge Garza on his own motion and without a written order or exceptional circumstance's, refused to accept a fee wavier from an indigent plaintiff, and then ordered the plaintiff to split the cost of a discovery referee at the cost of $200-$300 an hour with the affluent defendant. All along while failing to acknowledge the indigent plaintiffs ability to pay and proceed with litigation against the affluent defendant thus barring the plaintiff meaningful access to the courts. What this judge should have done was to order the affluent defendants to produce all documents for deposition as per his previous order and order monetary sanctions against the affluent defendants for their failure to follow a courts order.