Superior Court Judge Amy Hogue Draws Write-In Opponent
By SHERRI M. OKAMOTO, Staff Writer
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue has drawn a challenge from attorney MaryEtta C. Marks in the November election, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s Office confirmed Friday.
Marks, who did not return a call for comment, became certified as a write-in candidate by submitting a petition with the signatures of at least 20 qualified voters a spokesperson for the Registrar-Recorder’s office said.
Tomorrow is the deadline to file nomination papers for a write-in candidate, and
Marks is the only write-in candidate for the superior court so far, the spokesperson said.
An incumbent judge who is otherwise unopposed for re-election is susceptible to opposition by a write-in candidate if at least 100 qualified voters petition to allow such a candidacy no later than 83 days before the election; if that occurs, the deadline for a write-in candidate to qualify is 21 days before voting commences.
to the State Bar, Marks, 55, operates the Law Offices of M C Marks near LAX and
was admitted to practice in 1981. She is a graduate of
Marks, who is African American, sued the county, Public Defender’s Office, Public Defender Michael P. Judge, and several county employees in 2000 for discriminating against her and harassing her on the basis of her age, race and gender.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gregory W. Alarcon granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in that action, and his decision was upheld in an unpublished decision by Div. Two of this district’s Court of Appeal.
Deputy Public Defender
Presiding Justice Roger W. Boren and Justice Michael G. Nott, since retired, joined Justice Kathryn Doi Todd in her opinion, which noted that Marks was employed as a deputy public defender from 1987 until she resigned in 1999 after being repeatedly denied promotion to the position of Deputy Public Defender III.
Doi-Todd criticized Marks, who appeared pro per on appeal, for failing to conform her opening brief with the requirements of the California Rules of Court.
“For example, Marks’ brief does not state the nature of the action, the relief sought in the trial court and the judgment appealed from, nor does it state that the judgment is final and appealable,” Doi-Todd said. “Furthermore, in her summary of the significant facts, the only pages of the record Marks cites are to four pages of her unverified complaint. She cites to no evidence in the record in her factual summary, despite the fact that the parties’ papers on the summary judgment motions comprise 10 volumes of the clerk’s transcript. Throughout much of her brief, it is not clear that she claimed discrimination on the basis of race, gender and age. Indeed, nowhere in her brief does she even identify her race or age. Moreover, Marks does not support many of her arguments with citations to the record, as required by rule 14(a).”
The justice wrote that the court was “tempted” to strike the brief due to its deficiencies, but elected to “simply disregard those portions of Marks’ brief which are not supported by appropriate reference to the record or authority.”
Doi-Todd concluded that the county “presented ample, competent and admissible evidence that it relied on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons in not promoting Marks” and that the attorney failed to raise any triable issue contesting this showing.
Hogue had no apparent connection to the lawsuit, and efforts to reach Hogue at her courtroom last week were unsuccessful. A clerk who answered the phone said the courtroom will be dark until Wednesday.
She was a senior partner at the Los Angeles office of Pillsbury Winthrop where she was co-chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Group and headed its Media Advertising and Content Team when she was tapped for the bench in 2002 by then-Gov. Gray Davis.
Hogue’s private practice focused mainly on media defense work, representing publishers and media companies in litigation involving intellectual property rights, libel, false advertising, employment, contracts, alleged frauds and commercial torts.
She defended media and advertising clients in right of publicity cases filed by actor Tom Cruise, astronaut Neil Armstrong, television personality Vanna White and basketball star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and in defamation actions filed by then-actor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Copyright 2010, Metropolitan News Company