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.