Case Title: Haworth v. Super. Ct.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: california

Court: California Supreme Court

Date: 2010-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed 9/1/10 
 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
RANDAL D. HAWORTH et al., 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Petitioners, 
) 
 
 
) 
S165906 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 2/5 
THE SUPERIOR COURT  
) 
No. B204354 
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 
) 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
Respondent; 
)  
Super. Ct. No. SC082441 
 
 
) 
SUSAN AMY OSSAKOW,  
) 
 
 
) 
 
Real Party in Interest. 
) 
 
 
____________________________________) 
 
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.”