Judge Ray L. Hart, Dept. 10, Stanley Mosk Courthouse

[SuperLawGirl]

I had a nuisance eviction trial with opposing counsel. Opposing counsel did not have to argue for more than 2 minutes because Judge Hart did it all for her. He made his decision about this case after reading the court file. For over an hour, I argued with the judge on the law (which he had wrong) and he essentially implied that the defendant was going to win if we went to trial. He threw me out before I even got to present my case in chief and therefore never heard any of the evidence. Because I gathered that this was a loser no matter what I did or what authority I provided, I dismissed the case without prejudice. As soon as I said that to him, he noted that in the file - except to my surprise - he began writing "Judgment for Defendant" to which I screamed that there was a huge difference between a judgment for defendant and a dismissal without prejudice. (By the way, that's when defense counsel then asked for attorney's fees - shameful!) Be careful with this judge.

[Law Monster]

Judge Hart has been a judge for a while, I think he was a city attorney, not a DA. He may look young, but that is why he bleaches his hair. I clasify him exactly as another Commissioner Rafferty of West LA. Including he is probably a fagela. But do not take him as your judge if you have a choice. He simply is all over the place legally and lacks judicial temperment. The only way to prevail is if you have a statute he can read.
He talks soooo slowwww. He taps his finger on the bench with each word he says. The microphone picks up each thump which resonates throughout the court room. Then he closes his eyes as if in pain, and starts to comment.
Well, at first I did not mind his temperment. He was reaming my opposition a new orafice, then at the last minute, he just changed what was the logical conclusion as the judge stated was the governing law, denied the defenses of the opposition, and said I lose! It made no sense. On a very simple issue of law he basically said, I don't understand why someone would wait two years to get paid. So I don't think that is right. I mean, there was not statute of limitations, no laches, no anything. He clearly interjected his personal opinion as to how he would handle money owed to him, and ignored explanation given and the unopposed facts of the case. Therefore, the money even if it was owed, and there was an agreement, it was not enforceable!:eek: Luckily, it is a case which can be refiled, but what exactly do these Southern Boys or smoke?

Now if you get a limited civil case downtown, your choices are so limited. If you ding Carol Boas Goodson, the most evil, biased judge I've ever seen, you may get this ding bat. At least he gives you a chance to argue, but for what point? At least Barbara Miers has changed over the last few years and I think is a very good bench officer. I like Brett Klien, even if he is a bit too smart for his own good. At least he is friendly as he insults you, but is efficent and practical and gets the law right. And Kohn, well, I always liked him. Nice temperment, grasped the concept, and to the point. Maybe he can give some pointers to Judge Hart.
It is just judges like Ray Hart make you want to give up being a lawyer.:mad: