Nancy Anfanger Statement Accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of Bias and Undisclosed Relationships

forensic toxicology working group members July 7, 2025 Judge Rupert Byrdsong

Article overview: The Nancy Anfanger statement accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of bias, undisclosed relationships, ex parte communications and preferential treatment. This post presents the statement’s allegations and cited cases.

SEO structure updated July 24, 2026.

In addition to intervening with the jury and judge in the Ross case to ensure his buddies won millions of dollars, Judge Byrdsong also failed to disclose his connections in other cases.

As laid out above, Judge Byrdsong has a personal relationship with Bernard Alexander and was willing to ensure that he and his former law firm colleagues would win the Ross case by engaging in ex parte communication with Judge Bowick, among other unethical conduct.

Judge Byrdsong also did not disclose his relationship with Defendants’ counsel in another case, Dudek v. County of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. 20STCV27080, and apparently treated that counsel with contempt during trial (just as he has disparaged and defamed me in this case).

While he agreed to recuse himself eventually in the Dudek case, after his relationship was discovered and outed by Plaintiff’s counsel, he still showed a lack of any remorse for his unethical conduct — stating, in essence, that he would simply be more careful with his online conduct, rather than committing to act with integrity and disclose such relationships from the outset. (See Anfanger Declaration, paragraphs 21 and 22, and Exhibit 12.)

Judge Byrdsong apparently continues to go from courtroom to courtroom and judge to judge, trying to influence judges overseeing cases or attending trials involving attorneys he seeks to destroy because they are targets of his buddies, or attending trials involving his favored colleagues.

Attached as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct conformed copy of an Appellate Brief pending before the Court of Appeal, wherein Judge Byrdsong is once again accused of inappropriate appearances in other courtrooms, apparently trying to influence other judges — and apparently succeeding in doing so.

He has no boundaries and no judicial integrity. Instead, he abuses his power for his own personal gain.

In this case — which Plaintiff’s counsel only found out about recently, after settlement — Judge Byrdsong failed to disclose his personal relationship with one of Farmers’ counsel, Frank Magnanimo.

Judge Byrdsong’s buddy Bernard Alexander, whom Judge Byrdsong helped enrich, used to try cases with Farmers’ defense counsel in this case, Frank Magnanimo. Frank Magnanimo is also on the LA County Bar’s Labor and Employment Executive Committee with Judge Byrdsong.

But as in the other cases, he never said a word. Instead, he helped to ensure Frank Magnanimo’s clients would win the case (or force a cheap settlement, as Mr. Costigan was forced to accept under duress), and that he would not be sanctioned for lying to the Discovery Referee — whom Judge Byrdsong instead fired.

Judge Byrdsong is an advocate, not a judge, and will do anything to get the outcome he wants. Mr. Costigan settled because he knew Judge Byrdsong would never let him have a fair trial.

It is foreseeable that, based on his continuing improper and unethical conduct, Judge Byrdsong will not rule fairly regarding any future hearing in this case, including the two motions to enforce — despite Farmers having waived all such rights and benefits in the documents they now seek.

Why the undisclosed-relationship allegation matters

Nancy Anfanger’s statement accuses Judge Rupert Byrdsong of bias tied to relationships that allegedly were not disclosed. A judge cannot demand public confidence while withholding connections that a reasonable litigant could view as relevant to impartiality.

Continue with the Judge Rupert Byrdsong source archive.