Home
My name is Baltasar D. Cruz. I am running for Judge of the 134th Judicial District Court in Dallas County in the Democratic Party Primary on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 and I need your vote!
I am a graduate of Harvard College (A.B., 1987; where I majored in Government and played football for four years) and of the University of Pennsylvania Law School (J.D., 1990), and have practiced law in Dallas County since March of 1991. To learn more about me and my background, please go to my About Me page on this website.
Below are ideas I would like to implement if elected Judge of the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, which will reduce litigation costs and make the Court more efficient and just for most litigants.
Ideas for Judicial Reform
If elected judge, I will implement a submission docket whereby most motions will be decided by submission (without hearings) unless a hearing is requested and granted, as is currently done in Collin County and in the Federal Courts -- which will save litigants substantial sums of money and help to expedite the determination of all motions (since there will be far fewer hearings).
Once elected, I will not accept political contributions from lawyers who have cases pending in my court -- unlike certain other judges who actively solicit such contributions!
I will read all timely filed motions and responses before ruling on same. (Many judges frequently appear to make rulings without reading the motions and responses on which they are ruling!)
I will read all orders prior to signing same. (Incredibly, I recently saw a Texas judge sign a lengthy order he had obviously not read the moment an attorney handed it to him and then had to file a motion to modify his order because opposing counsel had included relief in his proposed order which the judge had not mentioned in his verbal rulings!)
I will permit out of town attorneys to appear at non-evidentiary hearings by speaker phone in the courtroom (where it can be heard by everyone) in order to save parties unnecessary travel and litigation expenses.
Mediation will not be automatically ordered in cases in which the pleadings indicate that the amount in controversy is equal to or less than $5,000.00. (Mediation will not be compulsory in such cases because the mediation fees and attorneys' fees imposed by such orders constitute a burden which is disproportionate to the relief sought for litigants in such cases and parties should not be faced with the choice they are currently given of incurring the cost of preparing an objection to a mediation order and attending a hearing on their objection -- which might be overruled anyway -- or just going ahead and paying a mediator and their attorneys for conducting a mediation. Although mediation orders in such cases do coerce settlements merely out of a desire to avoid escalating litigation costs, I do not believe it is the role of the Courts to impose litigation costs on parties that are so disproportionate to the relief sought as to coerce settlements. I think it is more important for a judge to reduce the costs of access to the courts than to impose expenses upon litigants which coerce them to settle in order to brag about having a high disposition rate.)
Automatic mediation orders in all other cases (i.e., cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000.00) will not designate a mediator nor a mediation deadline. Rather, all parties will be ordered to agree upon a mediator and a mediation deadline in a rule 11 agreement to be filed with the Court or inform the Court if no agreement can be reached, in which case I will then appoint a mediator and order a mediation deadline. (Since most attorneys have mediators they prefer to use and file motions for substitution of the mediator when one is appointed by the Court, this should also save judicial resources since a rule 11 agreement does not have to be reviewed or signed by a judge and the mediation deadline can then be extended by a subsequent rule 11 agreement between the parties without requiring another court order.)
I will not deny agreed motions for the appointment or substitution of a mediator. (Incredibly, I recently learned that a current judge in Dallas County refuses to appoint a mediator who once contributed money to one of her political opponents, even when parties have filed an agreed motion to appoint that person as mediator! When a transcript of a hearing in which precisely this occurred and the judge went on a tirade about the mediator was subsequently requested, the record of the hearing from which a transcript was requested purportedly could not be found!)
I will not ask or permit my court reporters (i.e., stenographers) to alter or "lose" transcripts of hearings or trials, as it appears that some judges do to avoid embarrasing themselves.
I will require all attorneys and litigants who have made campaign contributions to me in excess of $50.00 to disclose same to all other parties and litigants in cases they have before me.
I will automatically recuse myself from all cases in which I am asked to recuse myself by attorneys who have publicly supported any of my opponents (or who have run against me) if asked to do so by them in a motion for recusal in order to allay any appearance of impropriety or concerns about possible retaliation.
I will appoint guardian ad litems who will not automatically approve all proposed settlements on behalf of children and incompetent persons but who will do meaningful investigations and reviews of proposed settlements on behalf of children and incompetent persons (i.e., their "wards") and who will reject settlements if they are not in the best interests of their wards.
In my orders appointing guardian ad litems to review proposed settlements on behalf of injured minors and incompetent persons, I will authorize guardian ad litems to consult medical experts if they believe this is necessary to evaluate an injured minor's or incompetent person's damages.
Preference in trial settings will be given to similarly aged cases in which both sides are ready to go to trial, unless a special trial setting has been given to an older case.
Cases in which all parties are ready for trial will be given special trial settings and the position of cases on every week's trial docket will no longer be kept secret until parties announce "ready" or "not ready" for trial (contrary to the prevailing practice of only disclosing docket positions when parties make their trial announcements) so that attorneys and parties can reasonably anticipate when they will be called to trial and parties are not forced to incur substantial expenses in preparing for trial settings to which they will not be called.
Each side in every case will be permitted one automatic trial continuance, if it is requested and their motion for continuance complies with the Local Rules of the Dallas County Civil Courts. (At least one current Dallas County judge does not do this.)
Cases in which both sides announce "not ready" will not be called to trial unless there are no other cases in which one or both sides have announced "ready".
Agreed Motions for Continuance which comply with the Local Rules of the Dallas County Civil Courts (i.e., signed by the clients if the cases are over a year old) will be automatically granted.
I will automatically conduct a Batson hearing (to determine whether jurors have been improperly excluded because of their race or ethnicity) whenever it appears to me that one or more jurors may have been excluded for racial reasons.
Parties will be permitted to submit jury questionnaires (previously submitted to the Court and to which opposing counsel has had an opportunity to object) to jury panels for use in voir dire (in addition to oral voir dire) in cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000.00.
Parties will not be permitted to agree to excuse attorneys or others from jury duty "for cause" who have not disqualified themselves by their answers in voir dire.
Jurors will not be permitted to ask questions of witnesses (which at least one Dallas County judge permits) because jurors should be listening attentively to the evidence and not thinking about what questions they may want to ask or wondering why they have not been permitted to ask certain questions.
I will permit television cameras and/or internet video/audio feeds in my courtroom so that the public has meaningful access to my court (if this can be done).
Unlike some judges, it will not be my goal to dispose of cases more quickly than other judges. That is not the purpose for which judges are elected nor is it an "accomplishment" of which to be especially proud. Although rulings should be made in a timely fashion, a judge should focus on correctly applying the law (and be willing to research legal issues), reducing unnecessary litigation costs for parties, eliminating purely capricious impositions upon attorneys, and providing courts which are accessible to the public and safe for court personnel, litigants and visitors.
Political advertising paid for by the Baltasar D. Cruz Campaign Fund, John Kechejian, Treasurer, in compliance with the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act.