My job, which includes attempting to determine the facts and deliver a just decision, instead of making a reality-show-style popularity contest out of it.
Proper procedure (including appearance, notice, and other jurisdictional matters) is part of the decision.
It's ridiculous how otherwise (mostly) rational professionals are so blinded by their version of facts & the adversarial nature of litigation / hearings that they act so cluelessly.
This comment included: imagine if someone had a pitch scheduled with a VC, but sent an assistant instead. The investor would correctly pass on that and HN would flip a shit. But involve lawyers, judges and the judicial process...and expecting someone to show up to court is a "reality show popularity contest"
The claim was that he didn't fully hold up his end of the contract. This isn't a criminal case with forensics; this is small claims with a lot of he-said, she-sad.
I do agree with this and should have attended the first trial myself.
I do find myself somewhat conflicted though as to what advice to offer others in the same situation. In California small claims court, it seems that you basically can appeal a decision for any reason as the defendant. You could almost make it a practice to send an entry level person to fight the first one and if you lost, go back and appeal. The other shocking thing is that if state you will not stipulate to a pro tem hearing your case, your case will most likely be delayed again and again. You could almost just do that till the other party gives up. I have doubts that a person angry enough to sue would give up though - I did not.
THIS!
If nothing else, its a sign of respect.
The judge doesn't know the history, doesn't know the background. He knows there are two parties that don't agree.
He sees one side prepared, he sees the otherside who sends their assistant.
What would you do if you were the judge?