Melvin D. Sandvig

Judge Sandvig is, by any honest measure, an evenhanded judge. I do not always agree with his rulings, but disagreement is not the same as unfairness, and the latter charge cannot credibly be laid at his feet. He is consistent, deliberate, and scrupulous in affording each side its full measure of process. Indeed, his commitment to neutrality is so pronounced that he often appears determined to reach a Solomon-like resolution by spliting every contested issue straight down the middle, whether or not the record actually demands it. If there is a flaw, it lies precisely there. Parties who are plainly in the wrong are too often spared the corrective sting of judicial disapproval. The bench slap is withheld even when the facts are screaming for it. That restraint no doubt springs from a conscientious desire to avoid even the appearance of partiality. But impartiality does not require judicial timidity, and fidelity to fairness does not forbid recognizing when one side has earned rebuke. That said, having practiced law for nearly two decades, I have learned that what looks like excessive restraint in the moment is not always error. There is, at times, an unseen wisdom in withholding judicial rebuke which only later reveals itself as the case unfolds and the consequences of early condemnation become apparent. If this judge errs, he errs on the side of patience, restraint, and an almost stubborn fidelity to impartiality. And those are, in the main, vices the system can afford far better than their opposites.

This guy seem to mix criminal cases with civil so who is really behind the curtain?

In a breach of contract matter, Judge sided with corrupt Homeowners Association, usurped by unelected group which acted without a mandate, in ongoing violation of governing documents, which they claimed in their sham complaint that I violated by exercising free speech right protected by case law, to criticize the mismanagement at the HOA. Judge did not care that number of case law on point and the manager’s testimony that Rules were never proposed and adopted meant I should prevail. In violation of due process and equal treatment, he figured out during motion for summary judgment that they cannot prove the case, and all they will do is try to argue a decided issue, bared by doctrine of issue preclusion, which I raised in MSJ, so at trial he gave Corporation a day and a half (12hr) to re-litigate decided issue and then he gave me less then 10min to defend myself. Literary. I couldn’t even deliver an opening statement when he told me: "You may step down now". In a flagrant and harmful disregard for equal treatment and due process he closed the case without letting me testify, present my evidence and call witnesses. He also commented that I cannot testify by narration, which is all a part of the transcript and court record. Judge Sandvig unjustly hurt me and he hurt others. Number of serious complaints here shows that LA County Superior Court needs to do a WAY BETTER job curtailing what is more than just a ‘eyebrow raising’ conduct.

Judge tossed my elder abuse case despite having multiple experts, on the most technical of technicalities, which was fixed with corrected documents before the hearing. Specifically, the declarations swore under penalty of perjury but left out California, and, as stated that was corrected. But the judge granted summary judgment and then at the hearing it turns out he's buddy-buddy with all the defense lawyers and, to boot, mentioned on the record of another case that he already had a vacationed planned for the week my trial was scheduled. Makes me wonder why he really did what he did. I have rarely appeared before a jurist who seemed to be more unfair or have less integrity.

To the poster who allegedly could not find Birke's BAR #, (1) you have no business being a lawyer, (2) Burke alertign public is what we call checks and balances in democracy. Now, Google "Appeals court says no sanctions for Beverly Hills lawyer who sued Lowe's for not helping arrest unmasked man in store in 2020". Look at the LASC# B314138 - JOHN BIRKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Burke's fault was to sue LOWES who hired big firm and he was in ProPer. In Sandvig's Court this case was decided at firt glance at the first pleading's headings. Pro Per vs. Big Corporation - before Sandvig means all you can do is file peremptory challenge.

Fully concur with all characterization previously posted, in particular that Judge Sandvig doesn't read papers or comprehend issues. (How he passed the bar is enigma). Very early in the case he'll pick the winner (in his darkened courtroom that looks like movie theater) and if he doesn't like you you would lose -- big time -- no matter what the fact and law is. He is biased in favor of large firms or corporate litigants and if you appear in ProPer before Sandvig you would lose - even if you are a lawyer! John S. Birke learned the hard way after Jud. Sandvig cited him over $100,000, which appellate court then reversed. (The last post below appears to be Sandvig's post). Has little act as activist for corporate interests. If there is a quality oversight in this County and State he would have been removed form the bench long time ago.

48321 What is your state bar #, 'John S. Birke', "civil litigator for 33 years?" Because it failed to come up in attorney search, BECAUSE the way you disparaged this judge, and 'gave your name', wanted to check to see if your post was legit. And, after 33 years of civil litigation, did you just find this out about this judge, because another post with your name has redactions; and one would think that you should know better and not write vile , or inflammatory posts.

My name is John S. Birke.I've been a civil litigator for 33 years. Melvin Sandvig likely has absolute immunity from civil right claims, otherwise I'd sue him. Since I can't, I'll say this -- [redacted by Ed.] All those things the far right says about Pres. Biden are true of Melvin Sandvig. - He was never qualified for any bench, went to a [Redacted] was an LAPD cop when it was the most racist, criminal force in the nation, and was appointed by the vile. [Redacted] He was appointed by fellow racist reactionary Pete Wilson and confirmed when the Repugs had the state Senate. I'd happily give up my Bar card to testify against him under penalty of perjury, and have the chance to examine him under oath.

[Redacted by Ed.] doesn't read papers or comprehend issues. No regard for the law -- he's there to protect and be an activist for corporate interests and to implement his far right agenda. [Redacted] and ingratiated himself to racist Gov. Pete Wilson after years with the most racist police dept. in the country. Unfortunately, the Commission on Judicial Performance won't take any action, because its mission is to protect judges first and foremost. A real judicial oversight agency would have removed him from the bench 20 years ago. John S. Birke, civil litigation attorney for 33 years.