Stanley Blumenfeld

Arrogant. Needs to be the smartest person in the room. Seems to enjoy talking down to experienced attorneys. We don't need this on the federal bench. An obvious Trump appointee.

Q: What is the difference between Stanley Blumenfeld and God? A: God doesn't think that he is a Federal judge. This is my least favorite judge on the Central District bench, in which I practice frequently, and there is some tough competition for that title. He is imperious, unreasonable, and thinks that he is the smartest guy in the room. As far as I can tell, he is at least even-handed in his approach to counsel for either plaintiff or defendant. I will settle any case that gets assigned to him in order to avoid appearing in his courtroom.

Byzantine and overly technical rules of practice and procedure; innumerable meet and confer requirements delaying merits review; bizarre scheduling order with summary judgment deadline BEFORE close of FACT discovery (what Article III judge in his/her right mind does that?); virtually impossible to change pretrial schedule; his system is clearly and intentionally designed to frustrate litigants from achieving any merits analysis of motions and to coerce settlement rather than incur the attorneys fees necessary to comply with his ridiculously complex procedural requirements.

THIS JUDGE ONLY CARES ABOUT THE BIG CORPORATION AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS! CAN CARELESS ABOUT THE PEOPLE. JUDGE CLARENCE THOMAS BUT WHITE!

A Trump punk. Thinks he always is the smartest guy in the room. Clerked for former Ninth Circuit, right-wing Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, and learned from her. He is pro-government and anti-civil rights. As arrogant as can be; a disgrace to the bench.

Completely biased in favor of business and government, and really, really horrible. A Trump appointee who behaves like what would expect of a Trump judge.

Judge Blumenfeld is a welcome addition to the bench. He works very hard to reach the right result. He will issue a written tentative in civil matters the afternoon before the hearing, which will be comprehensive and well-reasoned. After reviewing the tentative, you'll be tempted to prepare only for those issues he focused on, but be prepared, because at oral argument, he will question you on other aspects of the case or claims of the parties. Calm, professional and polite in manner.