Pamela Davis, Commissioner Dept. S Santa Monica

[Law Monster]

What is her problem? She's cute for a judicial officer, but when they were passing brains, she was a the beauty shop, not the knowledge factory.

I have watched her in traffic trials where it was clear she has no clue as to the rules of evidence or the right of an accused to cross-examine the police officer concerning actual bias, etc.

I had a small claims appeal for a defendant, while I won, I could not believe that she accepted my argument. I have no idea how she determines what the law is, maybe she flips a coin.

On another day I had an unlawful detainer action, I observed that she is unable to control her court room. She will let lawyers and in pro pers ramble on and on for ever! After letting one lawyer ramble for 10 minutes, the opposing lawyer who politely waited spoke, and made a lot of sense with whatever the issue was, e.g. he cited several cases that if true were on point and completely controverted the rambling lawyer, however Davis simply said I grant the rambling lawyer's motion, which if true, meant she had no jurisdiction and subtantively and in all fairness was wrong! Oh well, if you want justice and fair play, go to a smart and fair judge like Rosenberg, or at least a smart judge like Collins.

[UD King]

I'm glad this forum is annonymous. I've spent many days in this court and agree she is not the brightest. As far as the beauty contest, Patricia Collins may be a bit older, but Patricia Collins is pretty, very smart, sweet, manipulative, will **** you if she does not like your case and could use a good hair stylist but is has that je ne ce quoi.

With Commissioner Davis Landlords win 99% of the time. It may be 100%, but I'm not there everyday. If you are a regular UD lawyer she will do anything you want. I saw the other post about Molho we all hate that bitch, but even she gets Davis to grant anything sh ewants (e.g. orders shortening time for motions to compel or to stay the trial when there is no real reason to do so) yet Molho has never tried a case before Davis that I have seen.

I would also suggest that Davis learn how to control her court room a little better, but I have also seen her get nasty which is a scary. It's hard to describe her when she is mad, it's more of a "I'm supposed to be the judge here along" with a glaring stare " or a stern "That's my ruling, I don't know how to explain it, but that's it now leave."

All I can suggest is be nice with her, calm, act like this is the way it's been done for eons (e.g. minor mistakes in the notice don't matter, health department reports and complaint letters after the 3 day notice don't count, the no waiver clause always means you can permit a subtenant or room mate for a limited time without creating a tenancy, that's why it's a "no waiver clause", etc.)

I also do not believe she understands the rules of evidence. But she is used to small claims and traffic matters which I guess don't count as real law. I guess UD's are more important then small claims or traffic tickets, but UD lawyers don't know rules of evidence themselves. I'm just glad as a plaintiff UD lawyer she is here, at least in Santa Monica rent control cases we have a chance to win most of the time. But if you represent a tenant, don't stip to her.

[UD King]

Well, I guess time helps. So may the new blonde hair color! Or, the real change may be having a nice court room clerk who does her job without commentary upon counsel. But, Davis is improving.