Haworth v. Super. Ct.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 9/1/10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA RANDAL D. HAWORTH et al., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) ) THE SUPERIOR COURT ) OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ) ) Respondent; ) ) SUSAN AMY OSSAKOW, ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) ____________________________________) S165906 Ct.App. 2/5 No. B204354 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC082441 MODIFICATION OF OPINION BY THE COURT: The opinion herein filed on August 2, 2010, and appearing at 50 Cal.4th 372, is modified as follows: footnote 12 is deleted, and the second and third sentences of the first full paragraph on page 391 are revised to read as follows: Although the Court of Appeal characterized Judge Gordon s conduct as disparaging women on account of their physical attributes, our opinion mentions only one incident involving a person s appearance, in which he referred to a fellow jurist s physical attributes in a demeaning manner, and the opinion does not specify the gender of the jurist. (In re Gordon, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 474.) Even assuming the jurist was a woman, any number of speculative inferences might be made about Judge Gordon s attitudes based upon that conduct.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
