“It is clear to Defendant and his undersigned counsel that the Judge is, with all due respect, a “robo-judge” when it comes to foreclosures. That sounds pejorative, but it is clear the Judge predetermined (in this case and many others) that he was going to grant summary judgment or set trial.”

~

Dismiss Cases? Or Cram Through Judgments?

By contrast, I am filing this Motion to DQ Judge because I’m so troubled at what happened in today’s hearing in a different case. This judge took it upon himself to issue an Order setting a hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (not setting a hearing on any of my client’s motions). After denying summary judgment (where plaintiff’s counsel was unprepared to proceed), the judge immediately set a trial, refusing to listen to my arguments or read my case law about why trial could not be set. In fact, when I asked to be heard, he pointed at the door, basically telling me I could leave if I didn’t agree.

In my opinion, it was clear this judge had pre-determined that he was going to grant summary judgment or set trial, regardless of the facts of a foreclosure case. Summary judgment or trial, that was it (on a case, mind you, that the judge took it upon himself to prosecute by setting a hearing). Respectfully, is that really appropriate?

You tell me – which approach do you think is better? Dismissing cases where the law authorizes, or judges taking it upon themselves to set a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for hearing, then either granting that motion or setting a trial (without regard to any arguments or case law about the propriety of a trial date)? I know which approach I think is proper/better.

Mark Stopa

www.stayinmyhome.com

Check out Mark’s post in full here…

PDF copy of the motion below…

~

4closureFraud.org

~

Motion to DQ Judge