Judge Jay H. Robinson

Judge Jay H. Robinson serves on the San Bernardino County Superior Court, appointed by Governor Jerry Brown on December 22, 2017. He received his legal education at J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University. The most documented aspect of his judicial record involves his handling of the high-profile ambulance contract dispute between AMR and San Bernardino County, a case that drew sustained media attention from 2025 through 2026 and involved an appellate court ruling as part of the broader proceedings. In the AMR v. San Bernardino County matter, Judge Robinson scrutinized the county's government procurement process and found a 'fatal' error in the county's dismissal of AMR from the contract selection process. His criticism of the county's procedural conduct in that case demonstrates a willingness to hold government agencies accountable for errors in administrative and procurement decision-making. This is the only documented substantive ruling pattern available from the provided data. Beyond the AMR matter, no additional ruling analyses, attorney observations, or ingested content are available to characterize Judge Robinson's broader judicial behavior across other case types or subject matter areas. Attorneys should treat the AMR case as the primary — and limited — evidentiary basis for understanding his approach, and should conduct independent research into any additional rulings he has issued since his 2017 appointment.

The single documented case pattern for Judge Robinson involves government procurement and administrative process. In that context, he demonstrated close scrutiny of procedural compliance by a government agency and was willing to characterize a county's error as 'fatal' to its position. Attorneys challenging government agency decisions before Judge Robinson should present detailed, record-supported arguments about procedural defects, as the available data shows he engages seriously with those arguments. Attorneys representing government agencies before Judge Robinson should be prepared for rigorous questioning about the procedural basis for administrative decisions. The AMR case record shows he did not defer to the county's process without examination. Counsel for public entities should ensure the administrative record is airtight and that every procedural step in a decision-making process is documented and defensible. Because no attorney observations or additional ruling analyses are available, attorneys should not extrapolate the AMR case patterns to unrelated practice areas such as civil tort, family law, or criminal matters. The strategic guidance here is necessarily narrow and confined to what the data directly supports.

• critical

  Audit the Administrative or Procedural Record Thoroughly

  Given Judge Robinson's documented focus on procedural compliance in the AMR case, attorneys in any matter involving an administrative process or government decision should conduct a complete audit of the procedural record before appearing. Identify and address any gaps or errors proactively.

• critical

  Research Additional Rulings Beyond Available Data

  The provided data covers only one case. Attorneys should independently search Trellis, CourtListener, and San Bernardino County Superior Court records for additional rulings by Judge Robinson to build a more complete picture of his judicial behavior across case types.

• important

  Prepare Detailed Procedural Compliance Briefing

  In matters involving government agency decisions, prepare a brief or argument section that walks through each procedural step taken by the agency and demonstrates compliance with applicable rules. The AMR case shows Judge Robinson scrutinizes this level of detail.

• important

  Review the AMR v. San Bernardino County Record

  Attorneys appearing before Judge Robinson in procurement, contract, or administrative matters should review the publicly available record and media coverage of the AMR case to understand the specific reasoning he applied and the standards he used to evaluate the county's conduct.

• important

  Identify Appellate Court Rulings Affecting Pending Matters

  The AMR case involved an appellate court ruling that factored into proceedings before Judge Robinson. Attorneys should identify any appellate decisions relevant to their matter and be prepared to address how those decisions interact with the trial court record.

• ›Present procedural arguments with precision and record citations — the AMR case shows Judge Robinson engages with procedural detail at a substantive level.
• ›Do not assume the court will overlook procedural errors by any party, including government agencies — the available record shows Judge Robinson treats procedural missteps as potentially dispositive.
• ›Be prepared for the court to have reviewed the record independently — the AMR case involved complex, multi-year litigation and sustained judicial engagement with the underlying facts and procedural history.