top of page
THE ROBING ROOM
where judges are judged
Hon. R. Gary Klausner
District judge
C.D.Cal.
9th Circuit
Average Rating:
5.1
-
29
rating(s)
rating submitted
Please send me alerts on this judge
subscribed
Ratings:
What others have rated
Hon. R. Gary Klausner
evaluator
ID
date
Temp* Sch* Indu* Comp* Punct* Ev-Cv* Ev-Cr* Flex Bail Crim Settle Trial Sent Coop Average
Criminal Defense Lawyer
32876
11/10/19
3
2
2
1
8
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2.4
Civil Litigation - Govt.
25150
1/1/18
1
1
1
1
8
1
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
2.2
Other
23583
1/2/16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
21953
1/2/14
0
3
3
6
0
5
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
4.3
Civil Litigation - Private
21077
1/2/13
2
1
5
1
10
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.3
Civil Litigation - Private
13274
1/2/11
10
8
8
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
9.3
Civil Litigation - Private
12683
1/2/11
5
2
6
2
3
1
1
3
5
10
1
10
5
0
2.9
Civil Litigation - Private
12067
1/2/11
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Civil Litigation - Private
10158
1/2/10
7
3
2
2
0
6
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
Criminal Defense Lawyer
10182
1/2/10
8
8
10
9
10
10
10
7
10
8
9
9
10
8
9.3
Criminal Defense Lawyer
9798
1/2/10
5
2
2
3
8
0
1
0
0
10
0
10
10
5
3.5
Civil Litigation - Private
6885
1/1/08
10
9
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.8
Civil Litigation - Private
6540
1/2/08
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.9
Criminal Defense Lawyer
6542
1/2/08
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.7
Civil Litigation - Private
6575
1/2/08
10
9
9
10
10
10
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.7
Civil Litigation - Private
6425
1/3/08
10
9
10
5
10
9
9
2
9
9
7
7
5
9
8.9
Criminal Defense Lawyer
6267
1/1/08
3
3
2
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.2
Civil Litigation - Govt.
5942
1/2/08
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
9.7
Civil Litigation - Private
5954
1/2/08
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
Civil Litigation - Private
5824
1/2/08
5
1
2
1
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.5
category average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Fam
Par
Qu-Arg
At-Arg
Sch
Cri
Civ
Lab
Imm
How familiar are you with the work of this judge? (1=Not at all familiar,10=Extremely familiar)
Participates in Oral Argument (1=Rarely,10=Always)
Quality of Questions During Oral Argument (1=Poor,10=Extremely insightful)
Attitude during oral argument (1=Consistently inappropriate,10=Consistently respectful)
Scholarship as reflected in Opinions (1=Poor,10=Outstanding)
General Inclination in Criminal Appeals (1=Strongly ProGovernment,10=Strongly ProDefense)
General Inclination in Civil Rights Appeals (1=Strongly Pro-Defendant,10=Strongly ProPlaintiff)
General Inclination in Labor Law Appeals (1=Strongly ProEmployee,10=Strongly ProEmployer)
General Inclination in Immigration Appeals (1=Strongly ProImmigrant,10=Strongly ProGov.)
evaluator
ID
date
Fam Par Qu-Arg At-Arg Sch Cri Civ Lab Imm
Criminal Defense Lawyer
32876
11/10/19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Govt.
25150
1/1/18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
23583
1/2/16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
21953
1/2/14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
21077
1/2/13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
13274
1/2/11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
12683
1/2/11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
12067
1/2/11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
10158
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
10182
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
9798
1/2/10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
6885
1/1/08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
6540
1/2/08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
6542
1/2/08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
6575
1/2/08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
6425
1/3/08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Criminal Defense Lawyer
6267
1/1/08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Govt.
5942
1/2/08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
5954
1/2/08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Civil Litigation - Private
5824
1/2/08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
category average
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Non-lawyer Rating
(if applicable)
evaluator
ID
date
Rating
Other
32875
11/10/19
1
Litigant
12682
1/3/11
1
Other
10026
1/2/10
1
Other
9307
1/1/09
10
category average
-
Temp*
Sch*
Indu*
Comp*
Punct*
Ev-Cv*
Ev-Cr*
Flex
Bail
Crim
Settle
Trial
Sent
Coop
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)
Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias 10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias 10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility in Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible 10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pre-Trial (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions (1=Least Involved 10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing (1=Pro-Defense 10=Pro-Government)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators (1=10% 10=100%)
comments1
Comments:
What others have said about
Hon. R. Gary Klausner
Other
comment #:
32875
rating:
0
Judge Klausner must resign. He is biased and unfair. He makes decision based on his personal feelings not facts or the truth. He takes pride that a he is stubborn and makes up his mind before trial. He is definitely an idiot and should resign.
11/10/19, 6:07 PM
Criminal Defense Lawyer
comment #:
32876
rating:
2.4
11/10/19, 6:10 PM
Civil Litigation - Govt.
comment #:
25150
rating:
2.2
Judge Gary Klausner should resign. He does not listen to both sides, but takes the side of the corporation most of the time. This is the problem with many of the U.S. District Court judges appointed by Republicans - they will side with the corporations most of the time. America is no longer a country I love - it's run completely and solely by the corporations with their stool pidgeons in high office and behind the robe.
1/1/18, 7:56 PM
Other
comment #:
23583
rating:
0
The entertainment industry is making the court to be a 3 dog night joke with the Led Zeppelin plagiarism accusation. The song in question is not much more than an 'Old Fashioned Love Song'. There was a case quite some time ago with Jefferson Starship people NOT wanting new personnel to keep the name 'Jefferson Starship'. Well Randy California is probably NOT his real name either! There was a claim that a band's last/fatal mistake would be to appear in San Francisco. The song in question is supposedly by someone calling themselves 'Spirit' . . . but NOW they want material compensation. The songs in question were never contested by creators during their mutual 'living' existence on Earth. The songs in question are reworked from descending to climbing scales with loads and loads of working around them . . . with the original making cameo appearances. It is surely NOT plagiarism. It's 'an old fashioned love song' like with Monteverdi, Bach, Offenbach, Handel, etc.. Definitely NOT stolen. And definitely music kissing with music . . . an old fashioned love song. The entertainment industry toys with the Constitution by getting free press. A group from Australia (Three Dog Night) did a song just exactly about this. You see, there is a lot of bitch-I-ness in life. And musicians are NOT immune to sniping at one another. Three Dog Night might have taken some shots . . . but the principals in the 'question' (Page & 'California') were acquaintances a few times. And the 'question' NEVER arose. That's because this is an intellectual property and the work is an old fashioned love song. You should dismiss and tell the boys that they've all gotten older now and interest has faded in how these 'old fashioned love songs' should be played out.
1/2/16, 2:18 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
21953
rating:
4.3
Pro government and pro institution, not so much pro no-name litigants. If you're up against a large corporation or the government, you will have a tough mountain to climb. He requires you to set hearings rather than submit on motion papers, requires blue backing when most of the courts in CA have dispensed with it; requires chambers copies the very next day despite e-filing; and cancels hearings at the last minute when he knows you've got a distance to go -- then takes papers on submission anyway. On the other hand, is very strict on plaintiffs when it comes to personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. If an institutional party or a governmental party gets caught lying or misleading in the case, that's the death knell with him. He can be scholarly but generally expect to dot your I's and cross your T's with him. He is courteous and appears even-handed. Seems he is happy where he is. There is no hint of any liberal or judicial activism in his rulings generally but there is sometimes an agenda flowing in an undercurrent. He is more conservative than most judges in CA so you know where most of his rulings are headed.
1/2/14, 5:21 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
21077
rating:
3.3
Does not certify class actions. Refuses all requests for extensions of time, even when stipulated by both sides. Sets trial dates out 12 months from complaint filing date, even when the parties stipulate to a longer case schedule.
1/2/13, 8:25 PM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
13274
rating:
9.3
Great judge who makes the legal system as efficient as can be. He is fair on evidence and treats each party equally. He is also not hesitent on granting motions for summary judgment, which is helpful when your client is spending lots of money to defend a meritless case.
1/2/11, 12:21 AM
Litigant
comment #:
12682
rating:
0
Will railroad civil-rights plaintiffs (e.g. claims against government or major corporations). If you appeal what is an obvious railroading, your case will probably be intercepted in the 9th Circuit by judges friendly with Klausner and the appellate decision will be a terse rubber-stamp of Klausner's handiwork below.
1/3/11, 4:49 AM
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
12683
rating:
2.9
Despite clear controlling law and controlling statue on Actual Innocence and U.S. Attorney Malicious Prosecution, Judge Klausner is so pro-government that he put an Innocent man in prison for years. Even after the U.S. Attorney admitted under FRCP, Rule 36 that the man was inocent and they were conflicted, he refused to set him free. Judge Klausner did not even give the man a Evidentiary Heraing in a Habeas Corpus (28 USC 2255) action. Judge Klausner clearly breached his oath of office and violated his Constitutional Duties showing bias to the Government.
1/2/11, 5:15 PM