"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Ramona G. See	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Los Angeles County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: 3.1 - 20 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 3 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. Ramona G. See

Comments

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: CA32267
Rating:3.0

Comments:
All the bad comments are true, especially in regard to her effective or lack thereof, as settlement judge.

She dismissed all of the arguments and evidence provided in defendant's settlement brief which was hared with plaintiff.

She accepted all argument and evidence provided in plaintiff's "confidential" brief which was not provided to defendant.

She did no research and did not even review the complaint or answer.

She simply accepted plaintiff's confidential arguments and kept asking the defendant to increase settlement offer "so we can get this done today."

Case did not settle.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA25450
Rating:7.8

Comments:
Judge See has a great temperament and puts the work in on her rulings. She is a bit pro defense but you have to understand the Torrance Courthouse. It's not that she doesn't care about the little guy, she actually cares a lot. It's just that she deals with a lot of garbage representation and is legally required to rule against those advocates. I think she should post her tentatives online because they are usually quite good, but she chooses not to which creates some level of ire because of the need for unnecessary appearances. A good judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA23982
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Will never rule against a bank; remands mean nothing to this judge. Stay away.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA18826
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I am representing the plaintiff. For the most part, her rulings have been favorable to my client. While there is no opportunity to see the tentative until you arrive in court, many Los Angeles judges do not even post tentative rulings. There is usually a 30 minute delay between the time the clerk provides the tentative and the judge takes the bench. So at least there is some opportunity to prepare. The tentative rulings are typically quite reasoned and detailed. I must say that I do like this judge. Then again, I might feel differently if she were ruling against me.

Other

Comment #: CA18274
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
when doing a random samoling over a two month period there were over 30% of her cases where plaintiff counsel filed 170.6 motions, and none of the big downtown defense firms ( especially lewis-bbs, Murchison, manning,gonzalez & ass. marder, etc., filed them . they love her. and remember the sign of a competent judge is one who provides the tentative ahead of time, she only provides it the day of the hearing and it is not posted . you have to read it on the table in court and then hand it back to the clerk. they wont make a copy for you, but of course it is copied right back on the final order and ruling which she does b not deviate from. Probably suffering from dementia, or been manipulated into a Manchurian judge. beware, and pleas would some non cowardly lawyer run against her at the next election!

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA16368
Rating:9.0

Comments:
I'm not sure why this judge get such a bad rating. She allows the litigants to argue their positions (i.e. she does not interrupt or cut off oral argument), and she gives consideration to issues raised in oral argument. Her rulings are very thorough and address the issues raised in oral argument, as well as the papers.

Litigant

Comment #: CA16277
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
1st of all, as of this writing I notice that this judge has one of the lowest rating, so what is the criteria for assigning a justice in this state? My attorney filed an amended request for discovery, including all the missing factors he failed to include in the first request. The judge issued her tentative based on the first request, ignoring the amended, citing the lack of addresses and reasons for discovery. My attorney read the second amended complaint which included the addresses and reasons into the record. The judge took it under submission and adopted her tentative based on lack of addresses. When I started this process I thought the justice was about the law and if's fair application....at this point, I'm not sure what it is. We were remanded back down to her court from the appellate court....and she ignored their ruling, as far as I am concerned...so we are back up in the appellate court again....

Civil Litigation - Govt.

Comment #: CA15263
Rating:1.5

Comments:
Will not make hard decisions; will not provide thorough analysis to support rulings on complex matters.

Litigant

Comment #: CA13574
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
In a case of of contractual fraud, Judge See sustained a $1 nominal damage award on the plaintiffs cause of action for the fraud of deceit on motion for JNOV and new trial...and sustained plaintiffs argument that $1 award "on the fraud cause of action" was an economic damage award...This is a case where the jury denied the plaintiff nominal and compensatory, general, consequential, zero monetary damages on its other two actions for breach of contract and unjust enrichment...$1 does not satisfy frauds essential elements of causation and damage..see CACI 1900...How did she become a judge....I don't know...170.6 out IMO...

Other

Comment #: CA13492
Rating:3.0

Comments:
3 and what do they mean by performance? nonetheless, this is my third time writing my review of dept. M of the Torrance court, and this alleged web site ( by attorneys for attorneys ) keeps deleting my non threatening, non profane, factual synopsis of the public information I am reporting. Who is north publishing and which attorneys do they really represent? My name is Lloyd Byers and my case $ is yc070720 and the judge in Dept. M and or the clerk ( s) in Dept. M have compromised my case terribly and have done so to the detriment of my self and many canons of state and federal law and for justice in general. there will be more. I am Lloyd Byers and I authorized this message.

Litigant

Comment #: CA13445
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Runs rough shod over the courteous professional, shows deference to the combative antagonist. On motion for JNOV and new trial, she sustained a $1 nominal damage award in a contractual fraud deceit action where the plaintiff failed to prove damage or pecuniary loss on any cause of action. Doesn't know the essential elements of fraud. Out of her depth as an attorney, not educated enough to be a judge. 170.6 IMO...

Other

Comment #: CA13442
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Runs rough shod over the courteous professional, shows deference to the combative antagonist. On motion for JNOV and new trial, she sustained a $1 nominal damage award in a contractual fraud deceit case where the plaintiff failed to prove damage or pecuniary loss on any cause of action. Doesn't know the essential elements of fraud. Out of her depth as an attorney, not educated enough to be a judge. 170.6 IMO...

Litigant

Comment #: CA12443
Rating:1.0

Comments:
I watched this judge make a ruling, completely contrary to basic law, to strike punitive damages in a case that is a textbook case FOR punitive damages. God help me, I am stuck with her. I find her illogical, ignorant of the law, and easy to baffle with nonsense. She is arrogant and does nothing to advance justice, just sucks up her 180k taxpayer salary and denying justice. Gives a really bad name to our judicial system. How many of her rulings have been overturned?

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11882
Rating:1.1

Comments:
Hard to believe she's a lawyer much less a judge. She acts much more like a obstructionist bureaucrat than a judge trying to achieve substantial justice. She has no sensitivity to fairness. As a result, you are rolling the dice every time you go into her courtroom. If you are on a contingency fee you are going to lose money. If billing hourly, bring your client so that they can see for themselves that you actually spent all morning (or day if in trial) waiting to be heard by the judge. I think you are better off flipping a coin -- at least it would be cheaper -- than trying a case in front of her. But it's the perfect courtroom if you want incessant delays or if your clients are guilty as hell. If you are on the side of right, have a court reporter with you at all times and be ready to appeal.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11881
Rating:1.1

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA11878
Rating:1.8

Comments:
Not intellectually up to the task. Doesn't think through the consequences of her actions or decisions. Very arbitrary. Seems to apply a reasonable doubt burden to civil cases, and looks for ways to obstruct lawyers.

Other

Comment #: CA10564
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Disrespectful. She does not know the law. She made a ruling based on a law that was changed years ago. When she was corrected and realized her error, she brushed it off and kept the ruling the same. She is a truly dispicable judge and should be removed from her position inmediately.

Other

Comment #: CA10553
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
My friend went in for a simple name and gender marker change which the judge denied, even though my friend is following the proper medical advice of his doctors monitoring his transition and had appropriate documentation. She not only denied him but insulted him by saying "sorry ma'am". Extremely inappropriate.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA9983
Rating:1.3

Comments:
Nasty, uneven tempered, ill-willed, attorney hating monster who is incompetent and clueless and she should never have been placed on the bench -- and those are her good points.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA8978
Rating:2.3

Comments:
Clearly she does not like being a judge. The problem is that she forgets that she is a judge; not just some county administrator. The fact that decisions she makes actually affect peoples' lives is lost on her. Angry. Ineffective. Clueless. 170.6

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA8514
Rating:8.0

Comments:
Judge See is tough but fair. She is reasonable, offers a generous amount of time for both parties during oral argument, and patiently listens to the arguments. She had a strong grasp of the issues and case, and appears to read and review all court docs. One of the five best judges I’ve been before.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA8032
Rating:2.8

Comments:
Judge See is without a doubt the least consistent jurist I have appeared before. Her rulings are all over the map and she rarely adheres to the rules of civil procedure. You can expect to wait months for rulings on any substantive matters as she takes everything under submission and never rules from the bench. She also does not hear oral arguments on any ex parte applications. Her demeanor is generally unpleasant and it is not clear that she reads anything prior to taking the bench. It generally seems that litigants and their counsel are at the mercy of her clerk. If you have the ability to file a 170.6, I strongly recommend it. I cannot say that I found her to be biased towards plaintiffs or defendants, just generally bad at her job and seemingly indifferent to that fact.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7850
Rating:1.0

Comments:
All the bad comments are true: does not understand the law; does not understand evidence; does not give a crap about her job.

She is not qualified to be a judge. She does not read the papers and puts no effort into her rulings. She acted affronted that I wanted to argue. She doesn't understand what evidence is. (Plaintiff submitted none - and I had to tell her that it was an evidentiary hearing, not a demurrer). Despite that, she denied my motion anyway. It's going up on writ, where I am certain it will be reversed.

Terrible judge - maybe the worst I've ever seen.

I'll be peremptorily challenging her from now on. This is not the first time she has completely screwed up a ruling on one of my firm's cases.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7730
Rating:8.3

Comments:
I'm a little surprised at the comments saying that Judge See is "pro-defendant." Being a plaintiff's attorney, (at leasst in my experience) she has certainly shown compassion to the "little guy" fighting the excessive motions and procedural delay tactics corporate defense attorneys employ while attempting to crush the opposition both financially and emotionally. While I do agree that (again, in my experience) she does not stray from her tentative, I have always found her orders to be thorough, with little to no ambiguity as to the reasons behind her decisions.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7404
Rating:2.3

Comments:
Tried to tell me in open court that one party's breach of contract cannot excuse another's performance...

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7219
Rating:1.1

Comments:
Arrogant, dismissive of both sides,generally unaware of mitigating law , unwillingly to change tentative in face of clear error. Forces unnecessary appeals;

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA4839
Rating:1.5

Comments:
This judge is incompetent.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3993
Rating:4.1

Comments:
I have only had one case before Judge See, but I did sense that she was a bit pro-defendant in my case (I represented the plaintiff). Defendants filed a demurrer, which she set for hearing approximately five months out (which may not have been her fault given the funding issues with L.A. Superior). In ruling on the demurrer, she essentially punted, placing a stay in effect while a related matter was appealed. I do not think the stay was appropriate given the circumstances, but that was her ruling. She later overruled the demurrer once the stay was lifted. She was also decidedly indifferent to one defendant forging another defendant's signature on a substitution of counsel form. Since the matter was one sounding in fraudulent conveyance, I had expected her (or any other jurist) to take the matter very seriously. She did not think it was worthy of an ex parte application or a hearing.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA3586
Rating:1.7

Comments:
As unpleasant a judge as I have encountered in 30 years. She turned a fairly straight-forward PI case into a nightmare with the whackiest ruling I've ever gotten from a judge - a ruling that was reversed on a writ petition. She apparently has no concept of what constitutes evidence. Perhaps the only good thing about the re-organization of the courts is that she will not be my trial court judge.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA3276
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Arrogant, unqualified, dismissive of counsel and litigants, especially Plaintiffs, clearly in over her head and hides it with a show of haughty disdain. She makes tentative rulings and never wavers from them, no matter how wrong; it is a waste of time to use oral argument to move her from the tentative; just use oral argument to make your record for appeal. She will often take weeks, if not months, to issue a final ruling on a law and motion matter, yet it is invariably the same as the tentative ruling, verbatim.
Based on my personal experience, and according to everyone I know, she is biased in favor of defendants, especially insurance companies. For Judge See, the law exists to protect the interests of the rich and powerful, and everyone else is a waste of her time.