R. Gary Klausner

He is too stupid to figure out that 30 minutes per hour over 8 hours equals 4 hours. See his 2nd decision in Alves v. Hewlett-Packard. He has never, in all his years on the bench, ever granted a judgment that resulted in an award of disability benefits. It doesn't matter if the benefits are governed by ERISA, Social Security, or private insurance.

This judge [Redacted by Ed.] and the Board of Supervisors and denies citizens access to their 7th amendment rights. He is a disgrace to his position and a danger to the nation

To call him' the honorable, would be an insult to other judges who guide the courts according to the highest judicial standard. Judge Klausner took on a case when he offered limited access to his courtroom. When I asked for video conferencing facilities to attend his conference hearing his clerk said he only does "in-person" hearings and no video conferencing. The Judge then went ahead with his in-person hearing and when I couldn't attend he closed my case for contempt. When I realized what he was doing I asked for change of venue. He denied change of venue and quickly closed my case down. Why did he hold onto this case....because he was protecting the corporates. The best defense would be to ask for the case to be reassigned before the case even starts. Unfortunately I did not know that.

This guy actually works for the federal attorneys (DOJ), and does whatever they tell him to do. He doesn't even bother to think or reason. He is 100% unfair and 100% prejudiced against nongovernment parties. Horrible. Beyond unjust.

Long overdue for retirement, this judge clings to power, ever willing to harm the innocent. His rulings are intended to strengthen the overwhelming power enjoyed by the government and its employees, of which he is one. He never allowed discussion. He never explained his outrageous rulings. Justice, fairness and honesty do not exist in his courtroom.

R. Gary Klausner is maybe the SECOND WORST judge in LA history next to the late Manuel Real. How these guys ever got voted in is incredulous. I also blame R. Gary Klausner's clerks who handed down opinions like they were written by high school educated people. In my humble opinion, R. Gary Klausner represents the absolute worst in jurisprudence - he doesn't listen or want to listen to simple case facts. This guy gets a 1/10 rating.

Every lawyer knows that even when he has a perfect case, a case with undisputed facts that lead to only one legal conclusion, there is still a wild card that can mess up everything – the judge. This is the true story of how 4 federal judges screwed up a man's life just because they could. I represented people claiming benefits under their employer's life, health, and disability insurance plans. The benefits are governed by a federal law known as ERISA and disputed claims are usually tried in federal courts without juries. My last case, Alves v. Hewlett-Packard, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6214 (9th Cir. 2022), was a “perfect case.” The law was clear; a person who cannot sit for more than 4 hours in an 8 hour workday is unable to perform a sedentary job, a job requiring the least amount of physical ability.1 The other side's internist, a Dr. Broomes, found that Mr. Alves could only sit for, at most, 4 hours in an 8 hour workday. Clearly, Mr. Alves was disabled as a matter of law. The case was assigned to the Hon. Gary Klausner, a district court judge for the Central District of California. In deciding that Alves was not disabled, Klausner came to the idiotic conclusion that “30 minutes per hour” of sitting ability could reasonably mean “that Plaintiff can sit for 30 minutes, get up for 5 minutes, and then sit down for the final 25 minutes.” Alves v. Hewlett Packard 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85754, at *12 (C.D. Cal. 2021). 30 minutes per hour, according to the judge, really meant 55 minutes per hour. I appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There, a three judge panel made up of Justices Forrest, Lee, and Ikuta decided, without oral argument, that Mr. Alves was not entitled to a disability benefit because he was not disabled. The case was decided on the briefs alone. The panel (Forrest, Lee, and Ikuta) issued a memorandum decision, an unsigned decision that does not have to explain its reasoning. The author could have been one of the three judges, a law clerk, a

As a former California paralegal, reading the comments here gives me great concern. If a sitting Federal Judge receives so many reports of dishonorable behavior should receive a serious review by the sitting directors who put him there. Where is the accountability?

He twists the law to support his sick opinion

Been practicing over 25 years, 75% in federal courts. It is unimaginable that this man sits as a federal judge. A traffic commissioner . . . maybe. He totally backs government, and goes well out of his way to ensure them victory. He needs to go.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Although he tends to be polite, don't be fooled -- he's a terrible judge. "ultra-conservative and intellectually dishonest" -- absolutely!! Klausner decides matters based on who he thinks should prevail, regardless of the law, and will issue findings unsupported by the record.

brilliant judge. agree very inflexible but is fair throughout