Misconduct of Judge Michael Small - the Judge of Los Angeles County Superior Court

Judge Michael Small, sitting on the Superior Court of California, has displayed conduct that violates both judicial ethics and due process protections under California and federal law. Rather than enforce fair procedure or ensure transparency, Judge Small acted in a manner entirely aligned with the interests of opposing counsel, including attorneys accused of misconduct, retaliation, and filing false declarations. His actions culminated in a series of procedural maneuvers designed to suppress my claims — including the setting of a dismissal hearing with no effective notice and denying me a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Judge Small’s failure to honor the ethical standards required of California judges — particularly in cases involving a self-represented, transgender, Muslim woman bringing claims against powerful institutional defendants — is not only unethical but raises concerns about bias, coordination with private parties, and abuse of authority. These actions warrant full investigation for potential violations of judicial canons, California penal law, and federal civil rights protections.

On May 22, 2025, I appeared for a regularly noticed hearing on my motion for preliminary injunction against the defendants.

This followed the denial of my ex parte application by the presiding judge on May 9, 2025, as well as an earlier denial by Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch of the Writs and Receivers Department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court on April 29, 2025 — a decision made on fabricated grounds.

On that day, Judge Small denied my motion for preliminary injunction on the false ground that it should have been filed in Department 82 before Judge Goorvitch—the same department that had previously denied my ex parte application on the basis that it should be heard in Department 57 before Judge Small.

The sequence of events strongly suggests that the real reason for the denial was retaliation: the evening before the hearing, I filed a pleading indicating my intent to pursue administrative and criminal sanctions against Judge Goorvitch for his baseless ruling.

My intent was to put Judge Small on notice that I was prepared to pursue the same accountability measures against him if he chose to follow in Judge Goorvitch’s footsteps by aiding and abetting Shein’s founder Chris Xu and his attorneys.

Rather than take that warning seriously, Judge Small dismissed the motion on a fabricated ground—mirroring the same pattern of conduct previously displayed by Judge Goorvitch.

Not only was Judge Small’s dismissal of my motion unwarranted, but the manner in which he carried it out strongly suggests improper conduct. As in the case of Judge Goorvitch, Judge Small appeared to be engaged in ex parte communications with Shein’s counsel and took steps that indicate an attempt to shield the defendants from scrutiny.

On the day of the hearing, both Judge Small and Shein’s attorney, Morgan Pietz, were late to appear—raising serious concerns that they had been communicating privately just before the hearing began. This suspicion was reinforced when Judge Small unexpectedly called my case first, despite it being listed 13th on the docket. Notably, no court reporters were present to record the proceedings.

During the hearing, Judge Small apologized to me for "wasting my time" and admitted he had known about the pending motion since April 9 but had failed to inform me that it should be filed in Department 82. This acknowledgment undermines the rationale he used to dismiss the motion and further suggests a deliberate effort to frustrate my case.

Judge Small claimed that he had posted a Tentative Order the morning of the hearing. However, in practice, tentative rulings are routinely posted online the evening before—not on the morning of the hearing itself. I checked the court docket the night before, and no tentative ruling was available. I was only able to view it immediately after the hearing, which raises serious concerns.

The docket appeared to have been manipulated post hoc, likely by or at the direction of Judge Small, to give the false impression that the ruling had been timely posted.

Furthermore, the Minute Order issued after the hearing appears to have been fabricated, reflecting facts that were not discussed or argued in court, and seemingly designed to protect Shein and its attorneys from accountability for white-collar misconduct.

In the Minute Order, Judge Small falsely and frivolously claimed that he had already warned me not to file the motion in his department, and that I proceeded anyway in disregard of that alleged instruction.

The Minute Order states:

“The Court's tentative ruling is posted online for the parties to view prior to the hearing. The matter is called for hearing. The tentative ruling is adopted as the final order of the Court.”

However, when I checked for tentative rulings the night before the hearing, none had been posted. In fact, the ruling only appeared after the hearing began, which coincided with Judge Small first reviewing my pleadings — the likely reason for his late arrival to the bench. Therefore, it was impossible for me to have known the contents of the tentative ruling beforehand, contrary to the Court’s assertion.

Notably, the tentative ruling does not contain a date, which supports my concern that it was created or backdated after the fact. This lack of transparency, when combined with the fact that no court reporter was present, strongly suggests intent to fabricate a post-hearing Minute Order — a record that cannot be verified or contradicted by a transcript. These facts point to a broader pattern of judicial misconduct and collusion with Shein’s founder, Chris Xu, and his legal team.

Judge Small further wrote in the Minute Order:

“The Court is disposing of the motion in that fashion pursuant to Rules 2.8(b) and 2.9 of the Los Angeles County Superior Court Rules. Rule 2.8 states that if a party moves for a preliminary injunction in an action prior to the initial case management conference in the department of the Superior Court where the action is assigned, the party must file the motion with the Writs and Receivers section of the Court’s Civil Division.”

However, Judge Small’s reliance on Local Rule 2.8 to deny the motion for preliminary injunction was entirely misplaced, for several reasons:

• Local Rule 2.8 specifically governs ex parte applications for temporary restraining orders, not noticed motions for preliminary injunctions. The rule does not apply to fully briefed motions for preliminary injunctive relief, which are distinct in both form and purpose.

• The Writs and Receivers departments of the Central District do not hear preliminary injunction motions. The court’s reservation system does not allow scheduling for such motions in those departments, indicating that preliminary injunctions should be adjudicated in the assigned department, regardless of whether a case management conference has occurred.

• Judge Small was aware well in advance that the preliminary injunction motion was pending before him. On April 9, 2025, I attempted to file an ex parte application for a TRO in Department 57. At that time, Judge Small directed me to the Writs and Receivers department, correctly applying Local Rule 2.8 to the ex parte request. However, since the May 22 motion was a noticed preliminary injunction—clearly distinct from an ex parte TRO—the same reasoning did not apply, and the judge should have retained and ruled on the motion rather than deflecting it.

At 1:39 pm later that day, I emailed Shein and attorneys informing them of my intention to disqualify Judge Small and pursue administrative and criminal sanctions against him.

At 1:52 p.m., Pietz opened my notification email.

I became aware that at around 2:00 pm Judge Small posted a Nunc Pro Tunc Order indicating that he had made a clerical error in not having a reporter and that he had just appointed a reporter.

In a follow-up order, Judge Small attempted to revise and clarify his earlier ruling by issuing a new entry, stating:

“It appearing to the Court that through inadvertence and/or clerical error, the minute order of 05/22/2025 in the above-entitled action does not properly reflect the Court's order. At the direction of the Judicial Officer, said minute order is corrected nunc pro tunc as of 05/22/2025…”

The very next day, I traveled from Las Vegas to Los Angeles to personally serve a Statement of Disqualification on Judge Small.

Rather than address the challenge promptly, Judge Small allowed it to sit unreviewed for seven days—until, within minutes of Attorney Morgan Pietz filing an objection, he struck the disqualification outright.

This maneuver confirmed what had already become increasingly evident: Judge Small was no longer acting as a neutral arbiter, but as a judicial extension of Pietz’s litigation strategy—granting every request, regardless of merit or procedural propriety.

Realizing that I could not expect a fair or independent hearing under a judge so openly aligned with opposing counsel, I made the strategic decision to dismiss the case—not as a surrender, but as a necessary retreat from a courtroom that had ceased to function with judicial integrity.

Seven days after service of disqualiification on Judge Small, he swiftly struck my Statement of Disqualification on the almost comical ground that it “demonstrates on its face no legal grounds for disqualification,” citing Code of Civil Procedure § 170.4(b) minutes after receiving notice from Attorney Morgan Pietz that he opposed the disqualification.

In doing so, the judge completely ignored the extensive and well-documented misconduct detailed in my statement—including the fabrication of court records in the absence of a court reporter, and the improper denial of my preliminary injunction motion based on a false claim that it had to be filed in the Writs and Receivers Department.

Judge Small knew or should have known that the Writs Department does not hear preliminary injunction motions in civil cases. There is no option to reserve a preliminary injunction hearing in any of teh three writs departments of Central Division of Los Angeles County Superior Court.

His ruling not only reflected a misunderstanding of court procedure, but more troublingly, suggested a deliberate effort to fabricate procedural grounds to suppress a valid disqualification challenge and shield himself from scrutiny.

The judge fraudulently dismissed my motion in what appears to be an effort to satisfy incoming instructions from Attorney Pietz—a pattern that has become routine throughout this litigation. Pietz gives the orders, and the judges respond as if asking, “How high?”