Rebecca F Zipp

I requested a DVTRO to begin once my Emergency TRO from law enforcement expired. I am in my early 30s and a professional. I was beaten up and SAed by a man I was dating. I filed the TRO myself. I submitted photos, the police report number, and the hospital discharge paperwork. I was frightened that that the ex boyfriend would hurt me worse if he located me and found out I was asserting myself legally. Also, I did not have an attorney with expertise in DVRO hearings yet.

Unfamiliar and unconcerned with the most basic civil code procedure rendering her findings arbitrary and legally erroneous. An appeal I filed concerned four de novo issues. These were not the most egregious legal issues, merely the most simple to reversing her absurd judgment, which cites a case she clearly did not even read. Does not deserve to be in a robe.

In 30 years of practice, this is the second judge I will refer to the judicial council. The first judge was removed for his outrageous conduct.

I write this review with respect for the judicial system and the difficult work judges are tasked with. After 10 years of dealing w/ family courts this judge raises issues about impartiality, courtroom decorum, and procedural fairness. Despite submitting detailed documentation and evidence in advance, it was apparent that the judge had not reviewed the case materials before making decisions. This undermines the integrity of the proceedings and creates the perception that outcomes are decided without full consideration of the facts. During hearings, I observed repeated behavior that was dismissive and, at times, demeaning. The judge would "shush" male parties mid-sentence in a manner that felt inappropriate for a professional courtroom setting. Additionally, the imbalance in treatment based on gender was troubling. While I am a female litigant, I was deeply embarrassed by how male litigants and attorneys were treated—as though their concerns and voices were irrelevant. A judge should be impartial and respectful to all individuals, regardless of gender. Moreover, attorneys were often permitted to speak at length, making exaggerated claims without foundation or evidentiary support. These statements went unchallenged, while pro se litigants were held to stricter scrutiny or interrupted before fully presenting their positions. This disparity contributes to the impression that the courtroom is not a level playing field.

Most judges go through their entire careers without landing on this page. In just 2 years on the bench, Judge Zipp has already accumlated 7 complaints. I seriously question this judge's ability to be inpartial. She exhibits a propensity towards prejudice and bias.

Google "Racist on a Plane" then ask yourself, should this judge be on the bench after authoring such a hateful article? How can a sitting judge openingly fantasize about committing a serious assault and battery because of a piece of clothing! If you're unfortunate enough to ever be in Zipp's courtroom, it's obvious that she has carried some unresolved issues with her to the bench.

Possibly the worst judge on the San Diego bench. Rude, condescending, curt. Run, do not walk, to file a 170.6. Strongly suggest having a court reporter in all proceedings before this judge and don't be afraid to file a complaint with the California Commission on Judicial Performance. In over a decade of practice, this is the only judge I've ever filed a CJP complaint about.

[Redacted by Ed.] is a hater, not a judge. [Redacted by Ed.] They "process" is secretive and hidden, people denied their rights while all information on what's actually going on hidden and locked. Normally what's locked? - crimes, possibly some human trafficking through court system is going on there. Will tip FBI

Horrible impression. She scheduled " special hearing" for convicted criminal including fraud Bryan Pease,while obviously being aware that I even never had been served nor court has jurisdiction. Incompetent

Definately a 1! Judge Rebecca Zipp starts her hearings with an admonishment "don't make faces or roll your eyes during testimony" yet has a friendly smile for the female Petitioner and lawyer all the while scowling and frowning at the male Respondent.

First impression not good. Filed an XP TRO Petition for RO with victim declaration establishing four recent threats of violence. The court must grant the 21-25 day TRO if there is "some evidence" of a threat of unlawful violence with any evidence it will likely recur without a restraint. She did not. After 600 of these cases statewide 20 plus years, that is a first. If this continues with this Judge, victims are going to be terrorized or injured by unrestrained persons.