The judge seems to lack a sense of fairness and will find any reason, no matter how small, to rule against a plaintiff.
The judge seems to lack a sense of fairness and will find any reason, no matter how small, to rule against a plaintiff. Like most of the judges in DC Superior Court, she seems mostly concerned about clearing her calendar. She set a motion hearing that the plaintiff did not request. Then ruled on the motion without a hearing and vacated the hearing. The case is important to the plaintiff's health, but not "high profile" and doesn't warrant her consideration of fairness. Most DC judges hate presiding over trials. They want the money, status, title, and power of a judge, but they don't want to do the work of real judges. They often are biased against people they don't like and sometimes don't even hide it. She's just an activist political appointee from Obama. You might get more consideration from her if you were a rapist, murderer, or pedophile. This is the future of American Jurisprudence.