Daniel M Crowley

Judge Crowley is owned. He has no problem harming the innocent. He will do whatever suits the agenda of those who own him, and as he harms you, he giggles and snickers, enjoying his abuse of power and sadistic temperament. If you have powerful friends, you may be helped by those who own him. If you don't, file a CCP section 170.6 declaration the moment his name is "chosen" to hear your case. [Redacted by Ed.]

Hateful and intensely biased person with no respect for the law, and willing to do anything to protect dirty government officials. It's all about power and the abuse of power for this judge.

Not a nanospeck of integrity or intelligence. Enjoys trashing those he hates. His bias is gigantic. Crowley needs to recuse himself but is not honest or humble in any way. Cuts off and shuts down those litigants he hates, and he has a lot of hate. Horrible. Horrible. Listen to his courtroom where he lets his favorites wax on for 20 minutes or longer, repeating themselves, and those he hates aren't allowed to speak. CCP Section 170.6 this horrible person who is not worthy to work in the halls of justice.

This judge will do anything to protect other government employees including rewriting and altering the language of a statute, and, cutting off the oral argument that is promised by the law to make sure the party he wants to trash has no opportunity to put his/her case on the record. He is so dirty and biased and unfair, it is a gross tragedy to end up with this judge. Facts mean nothing to him. He cites cases that are 100% irrelevant and distinguished because to him, he will do anything to trash an innocent person, forcing them to expend more time and money to obtain justice. There is no justice before Judge Crowley. It's worse than his flirting with young opposing counsel. He knows that he has prevented innocent parties from being heard or receiving any justice. No fairness here. Only total Bias and prejudice from Judge Crowley.

Wow. Shocking. Judge Crowley has no respect for the law or for basic civil rights like due process and fairness. He enjoys trashing innocent people just because he can. He loves abusing his power just because he can. He enjoys protecting totally evil wrongdoers just because he can. He doesn't provide any hearing where evidence would need to be proved as he hates the accused who have no power. He cares only about power and more power. If you aren't a totally powerful actor, then avoid Crowley by filing a CCP Section 170.6 motion immediately. He will only harm and trash you, then laugh and giggle afterwards. How did he ever get appointed to the bench? Who owns him?

This judge is both lazy and manipulative. He denied a lengthy and complex motion for summary judgment in purely procedural grounds and refused to allow the motion to be refiled, or to move the trial date, even though both counsel requested the continuance and the re-filing of the motion. Then, in a blatant effort to avoid having to go to trial on the case (after he refused the stipulated request for a continuance, commented from the bench during the hearing on motion for summary judgment that the plaintiff's case may end in a non-suit (ie a gratuitous comment that pre judged the evidence) in an effort to discourage plaintiff from proceeding to trial Definitely not worthy of consideration of being moved to the Court of Appeals. Strongly encourage the use of your 170.6, particularly if you are client is the plaintiff. One of those judges who is at the front of the line to collect his $250k check, but in the back of the line when it comes to doing his job.

This judge likes to pepper his banter with references to great movies and television. Here are two recent displays of great intelligence and an earnest desire to promote justice: The Princess Bride - 'inconceivable' is a line he recalled from this modern comedy. For counsel coming to court in October, he reminded them to bring a sack. Why? Treats may be handed out. The Judge then recited 'I got a rock.' - from a Charlie Brown TV special. There is a depth here that is frightening - a depth of adolescent and pre-adolescent cartoon level cognitive functioning. Not suitable for the Bench - or the Bar.

Here are a few ways that a recent trial was fouled by a judge who doesn't care about justice. Defense counsel was desperate to get her client off the hook as to the admissions that he had never bothered to answer. A motion was filed and moved up to the first day of trial. Judge denied the motion. But the next day, there is a motion in limine to do the same thing - and this judge grants the motion!! Ridiculous ruling. This judge favors defendants. He also doesn't listen carefully to evidence. Nor, for that matter, does he want evidence to be presented. He will go out of his way to block key evidence being admitted and to block expert witnesses. He chisels testimony time to an impossible minimum. It also didn't help that he read to the jury an opening statement of instructions that was a mess - a mess written by the defense counsel. Defense counsel left my motions in limine out of the joint binder - so he never ruled on them. Ridiculous gamesmanship. He likes to say that he wants a jury to be presented with a seamless presentation [what is this guy? a movie director?] and that the American democracy can only be saved by jury participation. But, sure enough, after the jury is put together, he keeps reminding everyone he is afraid of losing the jury. Then, after a couple of days of testimony, he says it isn't too late for a bench trial. Then parties rest and he invites counsel to chambers and immediately announces he is not granting any non-suit [not that any of them were articulated]. Yet, within 5 minutes, after defense counsel begged in gibberish, he changed his mind and granted all non-suits and the jury was shown the door after 7 or 8 days!?! It took him 25 days to issue a 3-page minute order. A dangerous lightweight judge who is very lonely in his empty courtroom. Arbitrary and whimsical to the point of being a nihilist. His chambers are decorated with an upside down map of California; it is a printer's error or a gag.

I was shocked while I waited for the judge to enter the courtroom. I sat at the table and the clerk opened the door to chambers and what did I hear? The judge loudly saying this: 'crack[ing] the whip'. I guess he was on the phone. This kind of talk didn't seem right. What do you think?

This judge is, on the surface, affable - but do not be fooled. He can get rulings right, but the big ones he totally blows. Recently, he had a M4SJ before him. The defendant's counsel wrote a declaration for the defendant and the defendant signed it. The Defendant's declaration said this: I did NOT open the car door to steal the car. [I paraphrase and I have changed the COA.] The judge let the defendant off the hook. The judge did not understand the principle of NEGATION in such a sentence. The sentence meant this: He, the defendant, opened the car door [but is vague as to whether he stole the car]. Given the COA was all about whether he opened the car door, the judge blew it. Consequently, it all ended up in appellate court. Why? Because the judge and his research staff don't know anything about ENGLISH [or logic, by the way].

Excellent judge. His clerk (the one with the shrill voice yelling at everyone) needs a lesson on manners and professionalism.