Andre De La Cruz

Since 1978, I have tried civil jury trials throughout California. In 2024, I had the pleasure of first meeting and then trying a two-week jury trial with Judge De La Cruz. He let the attorneys try their cases, was sharp as a tack, and did not waste jury time. The trial with Judge De La Cruz was one of the best experiences I have had in my legal career.

Worst judge! I can’t believe this man was put on the bench.

One word: AMAZING! Settled the unsettle-able. Great with clients. As mentioned in other comments plays no favorites. Disgruntled saps just dont follow his rules.

Oh, and as an aside, he had no idea of what a 998 was or how bad faith worked, and admitted that in chambers in a prior meeting. Pretty important if you are a civil judge hearing personal injury litigation.

I think this is the first time I have ever rated a judge. For credibility and not because I am a egomaniac, I am a 46.6 year plaintiff trial lawyer. I have been president of OCTLA, OC ABOTA, vice-president of CAOC and named PI Trial Lawyer of the year by ABOTA. I say that not to toot my horn but to point out I am not a stupi-dum. I tried cases in front of Warren Siegel and 5150 Lloyd and a guy in Bakersfield that was a piece of work. I have tried cases in two different states and at least 9 different courthouses in California. I have never thought lower on a judge than I do of Judge De La Cruz. Monday we were set for trial. I met opposing counsel at security (we have known each other for 43 years and consider each other friends) at 8:00 am, I tell him I am going to meet my client in the cafeteria and will see him at the courtroom. I believe the call is a 9:00 am, admittedly, I misread it, it was 8:30. Mea culpa. At 8:40 we are standing to catch the elevator to go up and defense counsel comes down and says the Judge just dismissed your case. I respond with wtf, we are close enough for me to cuss in front of him. He says I told him I saw counsel downstairs and I think he was meeting his client in the cafeteria. We go back up and I tell the clerk I mis-read my calendar and prepare myself for a tongue lashing and the clerk returns and says the judge says your case is dismissed. I look and the clock and is 8:44. We had very difficult times with him in approaching trial and I was not terribly impressed, but I never even heard of this happening in state court. Now I am not a Psychiatrist, but I don't think you can do this for 4 decades and not be able to spot a narcissist when you see him. I am now on my fourth generations of judges in Orange County. I have only had 4-5 on my automatic 170.6. Honestly, this guy tops the list

Employs a system based equally on stupidity and vanity. Keeps mentioning he served in the military as if that has some special meaning to his listeners. Is want to bring up some mundane chore he did around the house to use as a metaphor for your entire case. He'd be much better off spending his time visiting elementary schools and making speeches to young impressible schoolchildren than sitting on a bench before litigants. If I had a case that requires a lot of law and motion, discovery, and legal issues I would 170.6 this cringeworthy clown without any hesitation. There are good judges in this world and he's not one of them. He is 3rd rate at best. Truly one of those creatures to avoid wherever practical.

I had De LA Cruz. He is the only judge out of 9 judges that are not super corrupt and gives fathers a chance and hope. Many single mom's believe they should have 100% care, control and custody meanwhile the dad should only be allowed to be an ATM machine. He is the only one who allowed me to have visitation with my son, though it was supervised and I had to pay money $100 to see my own child and even thought I had all positive reviews.. anther judge, Donald Gaffeny took everything away from me and destroyed my life forever. Orange county is the most evil nightmare place on earth.. just minutes away from the happiest place on earth. This is the only good judge I've ever met in my life

The decision to grant 50/50 custody in this case is deeply troubling, given the glaring discrepancies in the proceedings and the presented evidence. During the trial, a daily drinking log, which meticulously chronicled the father's consistent alcohol consumption, was submitted by the mother. This log raised substantial concerns about his ability to provide a safe environment for the children. Moreover, the mother had previously obtained a temporary restraining order against the father, indicating genuine concern for her and her children's safety. This restraining order should have weighed heavily in assessing the father's suitability for shared custody. Additionally, documented evidence of repeated verbal abuse directed at the mother, occurring in the presence of the children, was presented during the proceedings. Such behavior directly conflicts with providing a stable and nurturing environment for the children. Moreover, the father consistently presented false allegations against the mother in multiple court documents, further muddying the waters and complicating an already complex case. The combination of these factors cast serious doubt on the fairness and thoroughness of the judge's decision. Family court decisions must prioritize the well-being and safety of the children involved. Given the weight of the evidence, procedural irregularities, and the father's manipulative behavior, Judge De La Cruz's decision was negligent and detrimental, and he should never have been in family court.

Ive recently had a few hearings in HON. De La Cruz's (Cruises?) Courtroom. Id like to start by addressing a different reviewer's comment, not something I ordinarily do, however if someone is going to review these then please bear in mind some authors, like one below literally wrote that this Judge is responsible for their child wetting the bed. Now, I've heard some doozies as a defense attorney, and having worked a bit in civil practice during law school, I understand substantial factor and proximate cause more or less. Just take a moment to consider the context there. First off, since when can a person be responsible for another persons urinary tract? Second, how could a person with the same fortitude required to find this website also be the same person who believes if it wasn't for Judge De La Cruz's ruling's they would have saved $15 on a mattress protector. Consider the source behind some of these reviews. Here is my 3 cents. I always prefer a Judge who has served in the military. Most people I think, get this wrong. What I mean is, most people dont recognize just how valuable having served in the military actually is to their case. Rather than have no sympathy for the human condition, or have nounderstanding of just how valuable freedom and dignity are to each of the defendants...Judge De La Cruz most certainly does...however often times, when defendants or attorneys, show little to no understanding of those principles... dont be surprised if you are "brought in line". Its a show of respect moreso than a imposition of his will. Right? I can understand how some would feel shaken, because someo of the most valuable lessons in life, whether we can appreciate it at the time or not are those that shake us. Serving iun the military can not be a walk in nthe proverbial park. As far as his disposition to defense attorneys goes, I want to emphasize that if you are someone that is not interested in learning, in engaging, in listening or in trying

Contrary to numerous case law he ordered that a child's therapist (hired by a controlling stepdad of extremely questionable character) dictate when she can see her grandmother. A judge is not allowed to relinquish judicial authority, especially to a treating therapist. After his ruling this 12 year old child failed classes in school, wet her bed/pants regularly, fought with friends and became extremely antisocial, inhibited and very troubled. He basically sentenced her to live in a Jim Jones environment with no contact with the one person in the world she could trust. He definitely belongs in traffic court

Doesn't know the law so he cannot follow it. Should never have been appointed a judge dealing with peoples property and children. This Judge is rude and interrupts litigants while they are talking. He was relocated to traffic so at least they got him out of family law finally.