M

• Author: Mark Thompson/Elizabeth Smith
• Pages: 505-595

M–R

Profiles Maas495

-M-

-M-

MAAS, Earl H., III

Temperament/Demeanor

Judge Maas “has great temperament,” said one of the

attorneys interviewed about him. Another attorney, who had

a one-week jury trial in his court, said, “His demeanor was

excellent. He was really evenhanded, and not too tough or

too nice to the attorneys. He had a really good disposition.

You never saw him grumpy. I thought he had one of the best

judicial temperaments that I have ever seen.” A third inter-

viewee said, “He has moderate temperament. I think he is

friendly. He is even-tempered, from what I’ve seen.”

Intelligence/Knowledge

Judge Maas “is intelligent. He is knowledgeable,” one

interviewee said. Another attorney said, “He came from a

firm that was predominantly defense, and I think he did a

lot of insurance defense in the area of product liability. I was

on the opposite side of him on cases several times when he

was still a lawyer. They were all product liability cases. So he

definitely has a good practical understanding of law and pro-

cedure.” A third interviewee, who had a jury trial before him

involving a business dispute, said, “I would say he did his

homework, and I think he had a lot of general background

in law, because when we were arguing things that just came

up on the spur of the moment, he had a lot of basic under-

standing of general issues. I think he had been a trial lawyer

for a number of years, and his father was a judge.” A fourth

interviewee said, “He is somewhat knowledgeable. I think he

is probably the best judge in Vista right now for civil cases.”

On Motions

One interviewee had no complaints about the way Judge

Maas handled hearings on motions, even though the most

important rulings did not go that attorney’s way. “He listened

to the arguments of counsel. I have nothing bad to say about

him, other than he ruled against me and I lost the case.”

Another attorney, likewise, said, “There were times when I

did not get what I wanted, but when I left, I felt like he had

made the decision that I probably would have made if I had

been up there in his shoes. He really knew the issues and

I thought he did a great job. He knew what the briefs said

and what the cases that were cited in the briefs said.” That

attorney also said Judge Maas is exceptionally patient in

hearings. “I have sat through law and motion, and you have

guys who go on and on. It would be very simple as a judge to

stop him and say, ‘I have heard enough, get lost.’ But he has

a lot of patience. If you are sitting there in court waiting for

your turn, sometimes you feel it is almost too much patience.

But if you were up there making your argument, you prob-

ably wouldn’t think so.”

On Trial

A plaintiff’s attorney who conducted a one-week trial

before Judge Maas and praised his performance said, “He

was really good with the jurors. The jurors really liked him

a lot. They talked after the trial about how much they liked

him.” That attorney added, “I really liked one thing he did

when a witness who was supposed to be there came in late.

He was the owner of the company that was the defendant,

and it was important that he be there on time and testify.

When he was late, the judge didn’t say anything. He just

made the jury sit in the box and wait—rather than dismiss-

ing them and letting them go in the back, and giving the

witness a pass. That was his way of punishing the witness

for wasting the jury’s time. He was very concerned with the

jury’s time.” Another attorney who represented the plaintiff

in a trial before Judge Maas said, “I found him to be a hard

worker. I found him to be reasonable and logical. He knew

the issues. He read your papers. And he was attentive to

the introduction of evidence.” A third interviewee said, “He

is an excellent trial judge. He does what every lawyer wants.

He lets the lawyers try their case. He keeps orderly conduct

of the proceedings. He calls balls and strikes on the objec-

tions and he rules on evidence, and that is what you want

him to do. And he does an excellent job at that. He is very

professional in the courtroom.” A fourth interviewee said, “I

don’t agree with him sometimes on the law, but he is a very

good trial judge, and I think he goes out of his way to be a

good trial judge.” Another attorney who tried a case before

Judge Maas said, “I lost the trial, and he denied my motion

for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. So, I have some

issues with his analysis of the law versus my analysis of the

law. But putting that aside, I liked him as a judge. I thought

he had a good demeanor in trial and a good demeanor with

the jury. I would be happy to have another trial with him.”

Continuances

One attorney, commenting on how Judge Maas handles

requests for continuances, said, “If he sees that you are

intentionally trying to delay something, he won’t give you a

continuance. But if you give a good explanation as to why

you need a continuance, he will grant it.” Another interview-

ee said, “I think the fact that he was a trial litigator for many

years makes him appreciative of the problems and the unan-

ticipated things that develop for us in litigation. So he will

entertain requests for continuances, but he expects you to

show him a good reason. He is not inclined to simply grant a

request for continuance just because somebody asks. But he

will accommodate realistic things that develop in discovery,

or illness or vacations or anything like that.” A third inter-

viewee said, “He will run you through the ringer on continu-

ances. But if there is good cause for it, after he blasts you a

little bit and holds your feet to fire, he will oftentimes give it

to you.” A fourth interviewee, who tried a case before Judge

Maas, said neither side requested a continuance of the trial.

But that attorney appreciated how the judge handled the

scheduling of closing arguments after the defense unexpect-

edly finished early. “Rather than forcing us to go straight to

closing that afternoon, he let us go home and do the closing

in the morning. I had asked for that because there had been

some changes that happened as a result of them pulling

a witness, and I wanted to reflect on that in the closing. I

thought he was fair to do it that way. It made everything flow

better in terms of the trial,” the attorney said.

Settlement

One interviewee said settling cases is “not the role of the

civil judges” in San Diego County. “They will recommend to

everyone that they go to mediation, and they may encourage

that. But it is not their role to recommend a settlement,” the

attorney said. Another interviewee said Judge Maas, in a trial

readiness conference, asked if the case could be settled. But

beyond that, “he didn’t make any inquiries about settlement.

There is a process where you get sent to mediation, and you

can have a judge do the mediation or you can go to private

mediation. But it is not the trial judge who does that.” A third

interviewee said Judge Maas was proactive about settling

a case, after a trial. “Before the trial, he had some general

discussions about whether we had attempted mediation or

some kind of an alternative dispute resolution, and we had.

But we had not been able to settle the case, so he went ahead

and tried the case, resulting in a rather unusual, inconsis-

tent verdict, which was a potential problem for both sides.

It was a plaintiff’s verdict, but it was obvious that the case

would probably have to be retried, so he worked very hard to

get us to resolve the case. To show the lengths to which he

went: he took a calendar for another judge for a morning to

free that judge up to work as a settlement judge, and we got

it resolved. That was an extraordinary thing. I’ve never seen

a judge do that.”

Proclivities

Judge Maas “is fair across the board. He is a lawyer’s

judge,” one interviewee said. Another interviewee said,

“People perceive him as being fair. He’s conservative, but he

is [ultimately] moderate. He is not extreme.” A third inter-

viewee said, “I have never heard anything bad about him.”

A fourth interviewee said, “I knew him as an attorney. I had

a case or two with him. He is very smart. He is very profes-

sional. I know he tried a lot of cases as a civil attorney. The

feedback I have heard is positive. He goes out of his way to

CJ_Volume_2.indb 495CJ_Volume_2.indb 495 9/5/2014 12:47:44 PM9/5/2014 12:47:44 PM

M–R

try to hear both sides and make the decision, irrespective

of whether they are insurance defense or not.” One other

attorney who was interviewed about Judge Maas said, “I was

talking to somebody just the other day, and I told him that

I thought Judge Maas was the best judge.” The interviewee,

who was representing the plaintiff in the case, said he knew

that Judge Maas had been an insurance defense attorney

before he became a judge, and knew that might leave him

predisposed in favor of the defense. “I was worried about

that, but I could not ever get a read on whether he preferred

our side or the other side, and those are the best kind of

judges. There certainly wasn’t any bias one way or the other.

I thought he was fair to the defense, and I thought he was

fair to us, as well. He did his best to give instructions that

followed the law, and when I pushed for something that

maybe I didn’t expect to get, I didn’t get it, and when the

other side pushed him for things that they wanted, they

didn’t get it, either.”

Summary

Attorneys said Judge Maas, whose father was a well-

regarded judge, has exemplary judicial temperament. Before

he became a judge, he was a trial attorney who handled

insurance defense work mostly in product liability cases,

and so he has brought a wealth of practical experience and

legal knowledge with him to the bench. He is an excellent

trial judge, according to all of the interviewed attorneys who

have tried cases in his court. Despite his many years on the

defense side of civil cases, plaintiff’s attorneys said he is very

fair and shows no sign of bias towards either side. (13A)

MACHIDA, Kenji

Temperament/Demeanor

Attorneys interviewed about Judge Kenji Machida were

sharply divided in their assessment of his demeanor. Those

who were critical of him did not mince their words. “He’s

horrible,” said one. “He doesn’t listen to lawyers. You’re

afraid to open your mouth and believe me, I’m not usually

afraid to open my mouth. He’s just really bad. He abuses his

authority. He acts like he’s God’s gift up there. He doesn’t

listen to anybody.” Another interviewee added, “Machida is a

nut. This guy is a totally unpredictable nut. I’ve never heard

anybody say anything good about him. I have nothing good

to say about him. Nobody in my firm has anything good to

say about him. He doesn’t have judicial temperament. He’s

off the wall. I’ve never heard lawyers say anything good, even

if you win in there.” A third said, “He is not real pleasant.

He’s kind of arrogant.” Other interviewees came to Judge

Machida’s defense, though they acknowledged that he is

widely disliked. “A lot of lawyers like camaraderie with the

judge. You get to know them and when you stand in front

of them, you have a little comfort zone. With this judge, you

don’t get that. He’s a real judge. He commands respect and

he demands it and he gets it. I think he’s very judicious.

People sometimes aren’t like that in family law. He has a

short temper sometimes, but he gets to the point and his rul-

ings are generally reasonable and well thought out. So I don’t

generally have a problem with him. You just have to get used

to his way of being. He will challenge an attorney. He has

challenged me. And the way he challenges people is blunt.

Some find that offensive. I didn’t. I answered his question

and then he moved on.” Another said, “I’m a former partner

of a major law firm. I’m a civil litigator and I’m comfortable in

his court. I’m comfortable with a judge who knows the rules

and applies them even handedly.” A third defender of Judge

Machida added, “Some family law attorneys aren’t used to a

formal approach. He’s formal but he’s hardly stupid.”

Intelligence/Knowledge

Several interviewees asserted that Judge Machida is sore-

ly lacking in knowledge of family law. “He doesn’t know fam-

ily law and I don’t think he’s making a great effort to learn,”

said one. Another said, “He doesn’t belong in family law. He

makes too many inappropriate and illegal decisions. Some

of the things he does indicate a lack of knowledge of family

law.” A third interviewee seconded that criticism. “He acts in

excess of his authority. He just took a matter off calendar,

a contempt on an ex parte application of another party. You

can’t take contempts off calendar and he did.” Other attor-

neys, rebutting the criticisms, said, “Nobody seems to like

him, which is too bad, because he seems like a smart guy.” “I

thought he did his own research in addition to the research

that was briefed for him. So he seems to take the appropri-

ate time to consider the issues.” “He seems to be pretty well

researched.” “It may be true [that he is unfamiliar with fam-

ily law] but he appears to be trying to educate himself. He

has a good grasp of evidence, which suggests that he prob-

ably came from a civil background. He had a very good grasp

of the evidence. I sensed a willingness on his part to educate

himself about what the family law issues are.” “He’s a very

intelligent fellow,” and as for any shortcomings in knowledge

of family law, “He can learn.”

On Motions

“I have not tried anything in there, but I was in there on

a motion and he was abrupt,” complained one interviewee.

Others cautioned that Judge Machida has some very spe-

cific expectations of attorneys in hearings on motions. “He

doesn’t usually permit testimony on an order to show cause,

even if you ask for it, so practitioners need to have their

discovery completed before they go into the courtroom,” said

one. “Sometimes with temporary support, that’s a problem

because you’re trying to get a temporary support order early

in the case and you haven’t really done much discovery

and he wants you to have your discovery.” That interviewee

added, “He doesn’t mince words and he doesn’t want to hear

about something he already has his mind made up about,

so he will cut off counsel in the middle of an argument, say-

ing you don’t need to talk about that. I found in a couple of

cases that he certainly made findings against the party with

respect to, for example, what that party’s income was, when

he had some evidence before him that the person before him

wasn’t being entirely honest.” Another interviewee said, “He

really dislikes ex parte applications because lawyers have a

tendency to file ex partes which aren’t really ex partes. If you

look in the code, ex partes are for emergency orders with

respect to children if they’re being harmed and yet people

file ex partes whenever they feel like it. He has a good policy

where you stand up before he even reads any papers and

you say what it’s about, and then he’ll decide whether he’s

going to read it or not. And if he doesn’t read it, he’ll set if for

hearing. Or if he finds that it does fall within the code, he’ll

ask you to sit down while he reads the papers so he can then

deal with the issue. I’ve been there in both circumstances.

When it was a true emergency, he did what he needed to do.

And there was one occasion where it was more of a financial

issue and he set it for hearing. He’s probably correct, but it

doesn’t make you happy.” A third interviewee offered another

example of one of Judge Machida’s pet peeves. “He makes

it clear that he will not read or consider paperwork that is

not timely filed. He will not cut you a break as some judicial

officers might. He says the rules are the rules and if you

don’t follow the rules, he’s not going to read it. However, if

you do file it in a timely fashion, he reads the stuff, which is

more than you can say about many, many judicial officers.”

Some of the attorneys interviewed about Judge Machida

said they appreciated his insistence on following the rules.

“He is knowledgeable about the rules of civil procedure and

evidence and attempts to utilize those rules even handedly

in the family law court, which I particularly enjoy,” said one.

On Trial

Interviewees who have tried cases in Judge Machida’s

court had mixed reactions. “I had a trial in his courtroom

over a series of day and I can’t say I have any complaints,”

said one. “I thought he carefully considered all of the evi-

dence. I think he had a hard issue to rule on. I don’t think

his ruling was arbitrary or necessarily wrong, though I didn’t

agree with it. We had a custody evaluation in our trial and he

went with the evaluation, which wasn’t a surprise. I wasn’t

happy with it, but it wasn’t necessarily a bad decision. He

seemed to grasp the important issues.” Another interviewee

496Machida California Judge Reviews

CJ_Volume_2.indb 496CJ_Volume_2.indb 496 9/5/2014 12:47:44 PM9/5/2014 12:47:44 PM

M–R

said, “I had heard that he’s not very decisive. And in one

of my cases, he did put us off a couple of times and sent

the case to an appointed lawyer for the child, which I’m not

really in favor of but which he apparently does a lot of. He

seemed to want to hand the case over to someone else to

make the decision for him, which is consistent with what

I’ve heard about him. I heard through the grapevine that

he’s indecisive, low on fees, makes it hard for the unmon-

eyed person, he’s low on support. All those things I heard

but I didn’t experience them. My experience was that he cut

right through and ruled.” The attorney added that Judge

Machida has “got a lot of rules” and he applies some of them

arbitrarily. “He has a list of all these custody orders, about

15 of them, and says, ‘Pick up that page, I’m ordering 1, 3,

8, 11 and 12.’ It’s sort of cookie cutter. A third of the ones

he ordered in one of my cases didn’t apply to the case. For

example, he ordered no corporal punishment when there

was no issue about anyone abusing the kid. He also tends

to send people off to classes. But I’ve found that he listens.”

Continuances

Of all of the family judges downtown, “I think Machida

is the one who would be least likely to have something con-

tinued for a long period of time,” said one attorney. But he

is “not opposed to some continuances.” Another interviewee

added, “He doesn’t like continuances unless you’ve got a real-

ly good reason.” That attorney wasn’t complaining. “He has

really good management of his courtroom,” the attorney said.

Settlement

None of the attorneys interviewed about Judge Machida

had experience with him as a settlement officer. “Normally

family law practitioners do not like to have settlement dis-

cussions in front of the trial judge,” one explained. One of

the interviewees who was most critical of Judge Machida

added, “I can’t imagine using him as a settlement officer [in

family law]. He doesn’t have the temperament for it. He’s too

autocratic. He doesn’t listen.”

Proclivities

A majority of the attorneys interviewed about Judge

Machida, including some who were critical of him in some

respects, said he treats everyone the same. “He’s not a biased

judicial officer.” “He is I think fair.” “Thus far, he hasn’t had

any favorites. Everyone’s treated the same and some lawyers

don’t like that.” “I think that on examination, he attempts

to manage cases using his judicial power to achieve a result

that he deems fair. Some of us might not like that. But his

motivation is not power, in my opinion.” Other lawyers said

he doesn’t always play it down the middle. “I went in there

with a Japanese American girl [client] and I did great,” said

one. “I think that was probably a special case.” Another

called him “pro father,” citing a case in which the father left

his disabled 3-year-old child alone in a car three times in 24

hours and “Machida hardly did anything to him. I thought

that was just outrageous. He should have yanked custody

immediately and he didn’t do it.” Regarding his orders, while

one attorney said he has a reputation for being low on attor-

neys’ fees, another said, “I thought he was shockingly over-

generous on attorneys’ fees. I thought he was really generous

on support. On that topic, I didn’t think he was careful about

following the law. You have to make certain findings on cer-

tain support issues and he didn’t do that. He just picked a

number, which was higher than the temporary support. But

I didn’t think it was outrageously wrong. I didn’t agree with

his result but I didn’t think it was arbitrary or capricious.”

Another interviewee said, “I think he’s good on custody

cases. In the custody cases that I’ve had, he ordered what

they called a focused solution evaluation. He ordered that

and adopted the recommendation over the objection of my

opponent. I think it was the right decision.”

Summary

Judge Machida elicits intensely negative reactions from

some attorneys in the family law bar. One of those who

was interviewed about the judge, and who was not alone

in expressing similar sentiment, said, “He’s just terrible.

He doesn’t belong in family law. He should be kicked off

the bench.” But other interviewees spoke up in his defense,

explaining that he is simply very formal and rule-oriented

and in those respects not what some family law practitioners

have come to expect on the family law bench. Those who are

willing to abide by the rules will fare well enough in Judge

Machida’s court, though they may not have much fun, his

defenders assert. (01G)

MacKENZIE, Lyle M. [Michael]

Temperament/Demeanor

Interviewees offered sharply divergent views of Judge

MacKenzie’s demeanor. One called him “abrupt, ill tempered,

moody,” and another said he has “terrible, awful demeanor.

He is rude to attorneys and to defendants.” Others disagreed.

“He’s a very nice man and a very good judge.” He has “good

demeanor” and is a “calm” presence on the bench. Still oth-

ers were neutral. “He’s no worse than anyone else out there.

I’ve had worse, I’ve had better.” An attorney who made sev-

eral brief appears said “nothing stands out one way or the

other” in his recollection of Judge MacKenzie’s demeanor.

Intelligence/Knowledge

Interviewees were more united in their assessment of

Judge MacKenzie’s knowledge of law, with most agreeing

that he was lacking in that regard. “MacKenzie probably

hasn’t picked up a legal journal or newspaper or case in

15 years. His knowledge of criminal law leaves a lot to be

desired. He was mainly a civil practitioner. He’s much more

knowledgeable about civil law than he is about criminal,”

said one. “His knowledge of the law is probably back in the

1970s or 80s. He is definitely not up on what the law is on

discovery and things that have changed,” said another. A

third interviewee was somewhat more charitable. “I think

he’s a fair man and I think he listens and he reads the

papers. But I haven’t been too impressed with his knowledge

of the law.” One interviewee said that his years of experience

carry him through. “He knows what he’s doing. And he has

the experience of many years on the bench,” said the attor-

ney, who called Judge MacKenzie “very knowledgeable.”

On Motions

Though one interviewee said that in ruling on motions,

Judge MacKenzie is “fairly pro-prosecution,” others said he

does not take sides. He “would not go out on limb” to rule in

favor of the defense, but he “would listen” and is “fair” and

“in the right cases will rule the way [he] sees it.” One inter-

viewee noted that he is not unlike other judges these days

in preferring to avoid making controversial calls. “There are

very few judges now who want to make any [tough] decision.

They figure play it safe and let the appellate courts reverse”

if they are wrong, the attorney said. Another asserted that

Judge MacKenzie is “very good” on motions and will follow

the law.

On Trial

Judge MacKenzie’s experience serves him well in trial,

by the account of several interviewees. He “knows the evi-

dence code, which is probably the most important thing for

a trial judge to know,” one interviewee said. He runs a “very

efficient courtroom.” Even one of the interviewees who ques-

tioned the depth of his legal knowledge said he “gives you a

good trial.” But one attorney cautioned that he is “very fast”

and “likes to keep the court moving.” Another said, “He’s not

a bad guy. I’ll take criminal cases to him. He’ll give you a

good deal and then if you violate probation, he hangs you.”

One criminal defense attorney offered a sharp critique. “The

trial experiences that I had were all pretty bad because there

were discovery issues. The prosecution was turning over key

evidence after we picked a jury when you’re supposed to turn

it over 30 days before trial. He had no problem with that. He

didn’t see where it was a violation or grounds for continuing

the trial or anything. His attitude was just deal with it. He

believed in the element of surprise and everything was okay

with him.”

Continuances

Two interviewees used the same word to describe Judge

MacKenzie’s stance on continuances: “horrible.” As one

Profiles MacKenzie497

CJ_Volume_2.indb 497CJ_Volume_2.indb 497 9/5/2014 12:47:44 PM9/5/2014 12:47:44 PM