Judges and Judiciary
Aug. 1, 2002
Veteran Judge Puts His Work Into Perspective
LOS ANGELES - At 82, Judge James E. Satt has a lot of stories to tell, and he tempers them with historical perspective. Satt remembers serving on assignment at the Central Civil West courthouse in the mid-1990s, for instance, when he was handed a dispute involving Warner Ranch in Woodland Hills.
James E. Satt
Superior Court Judge
Los Angeles
Career highlights: Assigned judge, April 1, 1991, to Los Angeles County Superior Court; private arbitration judge, 1989-91; appointed by Gov. Ronald Reagan 1973 to Los Angeles Municipal Court; sole practitioner, 1953-73
Law school: Loyola Law School, 1953
Age: 82
Satt remembers serving on assignment at the Central Civil West courthouse in the mid-1990s, for instance, when he was handed a dispute involving Warner Ranch in Woodland Hills.
A developer had purchased a 10-acre parcel of the ranch. But when he failed to obtain a promised construction loan, he sued the lender.
After intense negotiations, Satt was able to get a $15 million settlement offer from the lender. However, the developer was holding out for $19.5 million.
That night, a prospective buyer called one of the attorneys and offered to pick up the remaining $4.5 million if he could buy the property, Satt said.
The case settled the next day.
"That little piece of property sold for $19.5 million," Satt said, aghast. "That's more than the Louisiana Purchase, which was sold to the United States for $7.5 million. It's also more than the United States paid for Alaska, which was around $5.5 million.
"How times have changed."
Gov. Ronald Reagan appointed Satt to the Los Angeles Municipal Court bench in 1973. After his retirement in 1989, Satt served as a private settlement judge for three years, then returned to sit on assignment in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Assigned to the Inglewood branch, Satt moves 200 civil litigation matters a week through his limited-jurisdiction courtroom.
Satt has a reputation for being a good listener and running a pleasant court with efficient staff.
"He's fairly sharp on the law and gives you a fair trial," said Gustavo Barcena, a criminal law defense attorney and civil litigator in Los Angeles.
Barcena recently represented a commercial tenant in a three-day jury trial against a landlord over a lease renewal.
"[Satt] knew the case law on an area that a lot of judges are not real familiar with," Barcena said. "He was up-to-date on the law and ruled accurately.
"He's a no-nonsense judge. A case doesn't drag on in his courtroom."
When attorneys are late, Barcena said, Satt will admonish them.
"Opposing counsel was a couple of hours late one day because he forgot to come back for [post-trial pre-deliberation] jury instructions," Barcena recalled. "Satt was pretty angry."
But when the straggling attorney, whom Barcena did not identify, apologized for having "a senior moment," Barcena said, "the judge, being a senior himself, was very understanding."
Other civil attorneys gave Satt mixed reviews.
"On the positive side," a plaintiffs' attorney, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "the judge reads everything, listens carefully to testimony and lets people put on their case.
"On the negative side, he has a tendency to substitute his opinion for that of the Legislature and reported case law."
Satt responds philosophically to the few times an appellate court has overturned his decisions.
"That happens," he said. "I'll read a case and believe it says one thing and, in fact, the appellate court looks at it differently.
"When you get reversed, you don't like it," he said. "But the law books are full of reversals by somebody. One person clearly loses."
Donald Potter, a labor and employment defense attorney at Seyfarth Shaw in Century City, said Satt is pragmatic.
"He looks at the big picture without getting into the particular law or particular tests," Potter said, recalling a bench trial on a labor commission appeal in Satt's courtroom a year ago.
"Judge Satt was practical, and he moved the case along quickly," Potter said. "He wasn't afraid to make a ruling on evidentiary matters."
Another civil litigator complained that Satt allows speaking objections during trial, which can embarrass counsel in front of jurors.
"They're detrimental to the judicial proceedings," said the personal injury defense attorney, speaking on condition of anonymity. "He refused my requests to discuss the matter in chambers."
But Satt said that some attorneys make speaking objections during trial no matter what you tell them.
"If someone objects to [a speaking objection], I will try to stop it," Satt said. "If it's objected to, I will strike it and tell the jury to disregard it. If they don't object to it, that speaking objection is made, and it stays in the record."
In his nearly 30-year tenure on the bench, Satt has seen a lot of heated emotional battles.
In 1994, he presided over a five-week jury trial involving the heirs of the "Three Stooges."
Jean DeRita, wife of Stooge "Curly Joe" DeRita, and Kris Cutler, granddaughter of Stooge Larry Fine, sued Jeffrey Scott and Joan Maurer, grandson and daughter of Stooge Moe Howard for $5 million in a dispute over the "Three Stooges" film and merchandising income.
"The grandson of Moe took over running the 'Three Stooges' products, and he sent letters to all of the other heirs telling them business was terrible and there was no money," Satt said.
"But that same day, he wrote a letter to his mother and said, 'I told you that I was going to make you rich' and he enclosed a check for $250,000." DeRita v. Scott (L.A. Super. Ct., filed 1993).
DeRita and Fine won a jury verdict and ultimately transferred all Stooge licensing rights to Comedy III Productions Inc., a company formed in 1959 by Fine, Joe DeRita and Howard.
These days, Satt deals with more pro per defendants than attorneys because he manages an unlawful detainer and limited jurisdiction calendar.
"The basic type of case I handle - day-in and day-out - is unlawful detainers and automobile accident cases," Satt said. "Since the beginning of the year, I have had approximately five jury trials."
Satt prefers settlement to trial and prides himself on having the experience to know what a case is worth in dollars and cents.
"I get the people in here, give them a figure and try to get them to settle for that," Satt said. "They go out of here, talk in the hall, and somehow the case is settled."
Satt said he settles two to five personal injury cases a week and 10 or more unlawful detainer actions a day.
Unlawful detainer actions are heard every day, and most don't go longer than 10 minutes despite the tendencies of pro per defendants to engage in emotional outbursts.
"Sometimes you get one for an hour," Satt said. "In a high-volume court, you really don't have time to give someone an hour for an unlawful detainer."
On the personal injury front, Satt said his pet peeve is abuse of the system by chiropractors who routinely bill their patients up to $5,000 for minor automobile accidents.
Satt said he has noticed a pattern of cases with "very little damage to the automobile and a person going to a chiropractor for $2,500 to $5,000 worth of chiropractic bills," he said.
"The insurance carriers just don't want to pay out any kind of money when damages are nearly nonexistent to the vehicle," he said.
These cases are hard to settle, he said, but the plaintiffs take a risk if they go to trial.
"I tell all attorneys that you never know what's going to happen in a case because no one can tell you what a jury will do," Satt said. "It's a crap shoot - a roll of the dice."
When he settles cases, Satt said, he always gives plaintiffs something but that it is less than what they think their cases are worth.
Satt recalled the case of a fired animation artist who refused a settlement offer of $450,000 on a case against a Canadian company that was producing "Barbar the Elephant" children's programming. Beck v. Nelvana Entertainment, C674038 (L.A. Super. Ct.).
The plaintiff, Harriet Beck, claimed that the company had agreed to pay her 5 percent to 10 percent of everything she worked on. After her termination, she sued for wrongful discharge, claiming the company had refused to pay her for work on Barbar cartoons.
"She thought she had $4 [million] to $5 million coming," Satt said. "She got a $250,000 jury verdict."
Satt hears ex parte motions every afternoon from tenants facing eviction proceedings, and he reviews, on rotation, requests for arrest warrants from the Inglewood Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's station in Lennox.
Satt, the second of four children, was born in 1920 in Rapid City, S.D. His father, a cook, and his mother, a waitress, worked at various restaurants in town to support their family.
After high school, Satt studied business for 11/2 years at the University of Idaho, Southern Branch (now Idaho State University), in Pocatello.
In 1940, he took a job at San Diego's Ryan Aeronautical Co. - which built Charles Lindbergh's famed airplane, the "Spirit of St. Louis," which Lindbergh flew solo across the Atlantic in 1927. Satt worked for two years as a line-worker, inspecting manifolds for B25 bombers.
In 1942, Satt enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Force, where he received the rank of corporal during his three years of service.
When World War II ended, Satt returned to college, choosing the University of Southern California, where he wanted to go to law school.
But when he discovered that Loyola Law School would accept applicants who did not hold a bachelor's degree as long as they passed the entrance exam, Satt applied and was accepted to Loyola. He helped support himself by working as the school's law librarian.
After graduating in 1953, Satt married Sheryl Daggi, a secretary, and the couple moved to the San Fernando Valley. They have one son, Brian Satt, an Agoura Hills psychologist, and three grandchildren.
For the next 20 years, Satt practiced law in Van Nuys and Encino, where he handled negligence, insurance and construction matters.
In 1973, Gov. Ronald Reagan appointed him to the Los Angeles Municipal Court bench. For the next 15 years he served at the Van Nuys, Encino (a hearing court, which is no longer in existence) and San Fernando branches.
After retirement in 1989, Satt spent nearly three years contracting with the Superior Court as an arbitration judge in Van Nuys and Pasadena.
"He enjoyed a very good reputation for being a good, hard-working mediator and settled a fair number of cases," said Alan B. Haber, supervising judge of the Superior Court's West District in Santa Monica and former supervising judge of the Northwest District in Van Nuys.
"I'm not always right," Satt said. "I've been reversed a few times. But I've been affirmed [in nearly] 95 percent of all cases."
As for the future, Satt said, he plans to continue to do what he enjoys: "Sitting on assignment."
Here are some of Judge Satt's recent cases and the lawyers involved:
• Wilson v. Crawford, 01C01714
Plaintiff: Raymond L. Towne, Department of Industrial Relations, Los Angeles
Defense: pro per
• People v. Oyeniran, YA043683
Prosecution: Pamela Usher, Los Angeles district attorney's office
Defense: Alex R. Kessel, Encino
• Titensky v. Abila, OIC 02007
Plaintiff: Gustavo Barcena, Los Angeles
Defense: James L. Kellner, Torrance
• Prickett v. Musback, OIC01320
Plaintiff: Raymond L. Towne, Department of Industrial Relations, Los Angeles
Defense: Donald C. Potter, Seyfarth Shaw, Los Angeles
• Corona v. Wilson, 99C01106
Plaintiff: R. Thomas Sosa, Law Offices of R. Thomas Sosa, El Monte
Defense: R. Henry Sherrod, Richardson Bambrick Cermak & Fair, Arcadia
Tamara Scott
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com