Thomas C. Falls

How anyone could give this judge a rating higher than a zero is mind boggling. He contradicts his prior orders, makes false accusations that he can never back up, engages in ex-parte communications and is an advocate for the defense. He is beyond calculating and his primary goal is to destroy a pro per litigant for having the audacity to file a lawsuit. He ignores the law and precedent and looks for ways to hold you in contempt without even following contempt procedures. He can’t make a ruling without a transcript and has entered unprecedented orders for over a year and a half. He is currently the subject of a recall and is a danger to the bench.

Had a recent matter involving a mechanics lien to be removed. Judge Falls handled it efficiently, intelligently and with even a bit of humor. It was a straight forward matter but the Judge tried to make the process easy, was considerate and helpful, not always the case with other judges.

Ian and action on a promissory note, after acknowledging that defendant had submitted no opposition to a motion for summary judgment and none of his defenses were viable, Judge Falls continued plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that his submission of his family doctor stating that an unnamed neurologist had examined the defendant and "believes" that defendant's memory loss is due to mild cognitive impairment. No authority was cited for this bizarre proposition. Is this the insanity defense to an uncontested claim on a promissory note? Judge Falls recommended that the wife of the defendant, who is in pro per, going to probate court and have conservator appointed which Judge Falls said would be the wife but also that he was not advising her to do this (just making suggestions?). Judge Falls said that it was not a question of whether judgment would be entered against the defendant but when. Judge Falls repeatedly said he felt very sorry for the defendant and his wife but cited to know law for this continuance or abuse of discretion.

Ordered that a pro per of less than modest means being monitored for cancer recurrence pay $27,000 to a discovery referee, and another $18k is coming on August 18 ignoring decades of case law. The man is incompetent, vindictive and a tyrant. LARecalls.com.

He hates pro per litigants. Does not read their filings. He is allowing OPC to file motions to allocate $28k discovery referee fees on to a pro per litigant and refuses to consider economic inability despite substantial case law. Remove him from the bench. LARecalls.com