Angelina Jolie attains minor victory as Judge John Ouderkirk is removed from her and Brad Pitt's divorce case

Updated on Jul 25, 2021 02:26 PM IST  |  235.3K
   
Brangelina's divorce "case has been sent back to the Los Angeles Superior Court."
Advertisement

It looks like the ball is currently in Angelina Jolie's court, who enjoyed a minor victory in her ongoing divorce case with Brad Pitt. According to US Weekly, Angelina's petition to remove Judge John Ouderkirk from Brangelina's divorce case has been granted. A source shared with the publication that The California Court of Appeal ruled that Judge Ouderkirk is out.

"The case has been sent back to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Judge Ouderkirk is no longer involved and Angelina is grateful to seek a fair decision regarding custody for the children," the insider added about the 46-year-old actress' reaction. As per court documents which were filed on July 23, the court has now mandated that the superior court must "make a new order disqualifying Judge Ouderkirk" by vacating its November 2020 order which denied "Jolie's statement of disqualification." In a temporary ruling in May, Brad was granted joint custody of their children - Maddox, 19 (excluded as he is an adult), Pax, 17, Zahara, 16, Shiloh, 15, and twins Knox and Vivienne, 12.

Given that Judge Ouderkirk is now out, the current custody agreement is likely to be tossed away as well with proceedings possibly commencing all over again. In a statement by Pitt's spokesperson to US Weekly, it's revealed how the Bullet Train star isn't phased by Judge Ouderkirk's removal. "The appeals court ruling was based on a technical procedural issue. The facts haven't changed," the statement reads before adding, "There is an extraordinary amount of factual evidence which led the judge — and the many experts who testified — to reach their clear conclusion about what is in the children's best interests. We will continue to do what's necessary legally based on the detailed findings of what's best for the children."

It was back in August 2020, when Jolie first asked for Judge Ouderkirk to be removed from her divorce case alleging that he failed to disclose "ongoing business and professional relationships" with Brad's legal team. While the 57-year-old actor recounted how the ex-couple has a "well-documented history" with Judge Ouderkirk, given how he officiated Brangelina's wedding in 2014, Judge Ouderkirk responded to the allegations noting how Angelina has "clearly failed" to prove any form of bias in the divorce case.

Earlier this year, the Eternals star proceeded to file additional documents further alleging how Judge Ouderkirk had refused to her hear evidence, which included testimonies from three of Brangelina's kids, which she believed was pertinent to the case. "Judge Ouderkirk denied Ms. Jolie a fair trial, improperly excluding her evidence relevant to the children's health, safety, and welfare, evidence critical to making her case," was claimed in documents obtained by the publication.

Stay tuned to Pinkvilla for all the updates on Brangelina's ongoing divorce case. Furthermore, if you want to know about the jab taken at Angelina and Brad's divorce in the latest episode of Gossip Girl, head on to our ALSO READ section below.

ALSO READ: Gossip Girl Ep 3: Priyanka Chopra & Jonas Brothers to Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie; Famous celebs NAME DROPPED

Advertisement

Comments
Anonymous : A reasonable person would question why Angelina waited for a decision to be made, that was not in her favour before lodging a complaint. Perhaps the appeal judges should be investigated for corruption. Her lawyers innocently questioned the judge for disclosures after 12 other cases. The public are shocked that she bought her way to a win.
REPLY 6 1 month ago
Anonymous : The only good thing that has evolved from this disgraceful case. Angelina Jolie was exposed for raising her daughter as a boy for money and fame.
REPLY 7 1 month ago
Anonymous : Yet his legal team protected her not him.
REPLY 3 1 month ago
Anonymous : His lawyers are a disgrace.
REPLY 4 1 month ago
Anonymous : The appellate court judges falling for Jolie's spin are the real disgrace here.
REPLY 9 1 month ago
Anonymous : She paid them pretty obvious what happened.
REPLY 8 1 month ago
Anonymous : Lawyers look for a technicality. She waited for the decision and then used a technicality when the decision went his way. Good grief, most women are screaming for husband to share the load.
REPLY 5 1 month ago
Anonymous : Angelina parental alienation. Her relentless pr calling. Her issues with drugs. Her change in looks. Her average acting skills. The public aware her mental health struggles and her ability to make movie revenues. Have aged her out of Hollywood. All this calling of pap strolls their is a lack of interest in
REPLY 13 2 months ago
Anonymous : Why is she putting out so much news. She is irrelevant. The comments are like 300 people in daily mail versus 5 m for example prince William or Covid. She seems to think people care. But on the whole people don’t care about celebrities as much since covid
REPLY 5 2 months ago
Anonymous : Kim bassinger. Mia farrow where are they today. No where
REPLY 5 2 months ago
Anonymous : Her kids will be grown up soon. She destroyed her image career and reputation like kin bassinger. What good man will want to marry her. Like her mother they will all be afraid to get involved in this hot mess
REPLY 7 2 months ago
Anonymous : What career humanitarian?? Her last movie was a flop!
REPLY 8 2 months ago
Anonymous : He never adopted children nor are the youngest two his. Maybe it’s time to say he will only pay and wants custody of Shiloh
REPLY 4 2 months ago
Anonymous : The facts haven't changed. An absolute waste of the courts time to start from scratch for the same result.
REPLY 9 2 months ago
Anonymous : He should only pay for Shiloh she is his. The others she parental alienation the youngest Johnny Miller should pay
REPLY 6 2 months ago
Anonymous : It's a MAJOR victory! In fact its YUUUUUUUUUUGE!!!!!!!!
REPLY 1 2 months ago
Anonymous : The facts of the case have not changed. If anything this decision has raised suspicion on corruption that would make litigants question the process and how easy it was for a party to cause havoc on a slight technicality. She will fight to win because without custody she has less chance to gain access to his money. His legal team are asleep. Surely they must know this technical issue could cost their client dearly. How was it she knew about this technicality and not him?
REPLY 15 2 months ago
Anonymous : What kind of legal system has an open door for a dissatisfied person to waste the courts time and the other parties money based on the reality that lawyers work with many judges and vice versa.
REPLY 15 2 months ago
Anonymous : I would sue her if I was him
REPLY 14 2 months ago
Anonymous : I think the 3 judge panel needs to be investigated. It was rumored that Judge Giza has strong Metoo sensibilities, meaning is slanted against men who are accused of doing things. Angelina knew for months who the 3 court appellate judge team would be. Brad never should have covered up Jolie's addictions, infidelities, and toxic behavior. He played it clean and discredited her false claims. There is no record of Ouderkirk doing anything unethical or biased. Her mere spin is that he did not disclose his other cases promptly enough. They never had a contract to do that. Look up his other cases with Lance Spiegel, none of them involve Pitt. The Steve Levitan case was an ongoing one. I know Pitt is too classy to file a countersuit and Angelina has attacked Ouderkirk so much....it would be viewed as a potential conflict of interest anyway. Every lawyer I have talked to is shocked, they were all expecting it to go smoothly for Pitt. Now people are acting like all of Jolie's false claims are true. Now the case gets to start with coached, false testimony from 2021.
REPLY 13 2 months ago
Anonymous : I think most intelligent people and everyone in Hollywood know her claims are false and she has mental health issues. Anyone who believes her is a fan who really doesn’t comprehend reality
REPLY 13 2 months ago
Anonymous : This decision must be investigated as a precedent has now been set that could have adverse complications to many cases based on the reality that judges work with many lawyers on many cases not associated directly with the current case. This has just set a precedent that can have repercussions on many legal cases to appeal. What Brad's lawyers should have argued was the cases they were involved with are at arms length and not linked to this case. This decision now gives approval for either side to object if the lawyer works with the judge on other cases. The ramifications are huge as this would mean that a lawyer can not work with the same judge on any other case. This will impact the public courts as well as the precedent and technicality can be used to appeal if one of the parties does not allow arms length trials of a judge and lawyers to proceed.
REPLY 13 2 months ago
Anonymous : Pitts lawyers must fix their clients issue and file at no cost to the client especially if this decision is not investigated. Their client can not be held responsible for legal costs because the matter involves them not their client.
REPLY 11 2 months ago
Anonymous : Angelina knew the entire time Ouderkirk was involved in other cases with many law firms. There was never any exclusivity contract or any procedure saying Ouderkirk had to immediately discuss all of the cases with her in detail. She is spinning around a minor loophole to act like he can't be impartial. Most appellate courts would NOT have disqualified him and most lawyers are shocked at this decision. Ouderkirk never said no, that is a lie from her team. He was open and upfront with everything when they asked about it. It is ridiculous to act like this is a basis to disqualify a judge, malign his reputation, falsely claim he made an unethical breach, and start an entire case over. No judge would meet that standard in the state of California. They all work on multiple cases and it was up to Jolie's team to ask about updates on cases.
REPLY 15 2 months ago
Anonymous : All 12 of his ongoing cases were discussed with her. Her team chose not to ask him about updated disclosures for two years. In 2020, Samantha asked for an update. There were two additional cases that were extended and that is the card she is playing to falsely misportray him as "untoward, unethical, biased" and having "shady business dealings" with Pitt when none of that is accurate. Her spin to the press and appellate courts is misleading.
REPLY 13 2 months ago
Anonymous : I hope this site remains objective and fair. Thank you
REPLY 8 2 months ago
Anonymous : It's the only site open to discuss the matter openly. Lawyers have questioned the case on YouTube. Many are shocked and questioning the ramifications of this decision.
REPLY 12 2 months ago
Anonymous : Dlisted is banning people who support Brad Pitt with the truth on their site. They won't allow anyone who genuinely likes Brad Pitt on their site. A lot of sites only allow Aniston or Jolie stans to post.
REPLY 9 2 months ago
Anonymous : That’s a total lie. This is one of many brad pitt positive posts I'm kinda looking forward to what happens next cause this could mean Brad will start playing hard. I cannot wait for the barrels of tea that would be spilled. This ought to be interesting.
REPLY 2 2 months ago
Anonymous : Total lie dlisted and daily mail blasting her. I am not sure outcome but her career and image are damaged forever
REPLY 2 2 months ago
Anonymous : It is not a lie. 10 people were banned there today for defending Brad Pitt. They only let people who hate Brad Pitt post there. You can not be a fan of his on there
REPLY 9 2 months ago
Anonymous : They hate both Brad and Angelina. Dlisted is biased
REPLY 6 2 months ago
Anonymous : Well perhaps she is the one paying that media site. Journalst rarely do their homework to investigate right from wrong.
REPLY 6 2 months ago
Anonymous : Please post. MAJOR victory" No its not its a technicality and doesnt alter the judgement. The smart money is on the judgement being upheld
REPLY 10 2 months ago
Anonymous : Brad's mother controls who he dates. She controls the finance.
REPLY 3 2 months ago
Anonymous : Corruption has been exposed here.
REPLY 12 2 months ago
Anonymous : Only 10% of mandate ever win. She paid the judge and this order should be noted and investigated by the best journalists.
REPLY 13 2 months ago
Anonymous : If I were him I would find new lawyers
REPLY 7 2 months ago
Anonymous : Outside of LA
REPLY 6 2 months ago
Anonymous : If I were him I would get Supreme Court and federal government and organization that supports fathers and have investigation done. In the mean time any payment to her or children should be stopped until this is resolved. Since she is stalling. I would also sue her for parental alienation
REPLY 12 2 months ago
Anonymous : Now that's good legal advice.
REPLY 3 2 months ago
Anonymous : well brad pitt net worth is 300 million and angelina jolie net worth is 150 million who can bribe more you can clearly see. All the people saying angelina bribed judge and brad was set so brad is will never get set and angelina has far lesser money.You can all cannot tolerate a victory of women.
REPLY 0 2 months ago
Anonymous : She is desperate to win. Without custody she can not access his money.
REPLY 12 2 months ago
Anonymous : She will sell the property to anonymous buyer. His lawyers are asleep or involved.
REPLY 11 2 months ago
Anonymous : Did she do a deal to sell the winery with the judges?
REPLY 6 2 months ago
Anonymous : Women always win in the courts. They cry mother even if they never did a good job.
REPLY 10 2 months ago
Anonymous : I am a woman. But I don’t believe in parental alienation. I don’t believe in 6 years of turmoil to children. I do believe in 50/50 custody. I believe she wants full custody for more payout. I believe judge was bribe. I believe this and more sets woman’s movement backwards. She destroyed her career. Image and looks bad for humanitarian causes and woman’s movement. Her actions are spiteful
REPLY 9 2 months ago
Anonymous : Please post
REPLY 0 2 months ago
Anonymous : Many bad mothers cry me too. Brad was too lenient and it did not serve his ability too win. Everyone knows she has drug issues. You think she is that skinny for no reason?
REPLY 10 2 months ago
Anonymous : Brad was set up!
REPLY 11 2 months ago
Anonymous : You continue to not post my comments
REPLY 0 2 months ago
Anonymous : Can Clint Eastwood help?
REPLY 3 2 months ago
Anonymous : An objective person would think that she paid good Money to make that happen. Corruption!
REPLY 12 2 months ago
Anonymous : This case represents every spiteful woman who wants revenge. A united nations representative.
REPLY 11 2 months ago
Anonymous : Even the lawyers are questioning this decision on youtube. So it isn't just the public that are shocked.
REPLY 10 2 months ago
Anonymous : Angelina which ever way you look at it he won. He no longer has to listen to you. Lol
REPLY 9 2 months ago
Anonymous : Best comment yet!
REPLY 2 2 months ago
Anonymous : I would be questioning who is the buyer she has lined up to buy that winery. Sounds like a deal was done.
REPLY 8 2 months ago
Anonymous : If she is allowed to sell the winery, like she was allowed to sell art. Before the custody and before assets are settled. You know for sure something is not right.
REPLY 8 2 months ago
Anonymous : The art was a gift she can sell. The winery can’t be sold it’s not a gift. Ownership is involved
REPLY 2 2 months ago
Anonymous : Does she have that in writing or is that heresy?
REPLY 2 2 months ago
Anonymous : I posted 4 comments not written here. Why
REPLY 2 2 months ago
Anonymous : With millions at stake sounds like a bribe was taken or Brad was set up.
REPLY 10 2 months ago
Anonymous : Sure looks.like it.
REPLY 8 2 months ago
Anonymous : Strange they both have worked with lawyers with the same surname. .
REPLY 5 2 months ago
Anonymous : Angelina bribed Judge Giza and this decision makes no sense
REPLY 12 2 months ago
Anonymous : Angelina is playing dirty. The Los Angeles Superior Court saw through her manipulation in December of 2020
REPLY 14 2 months ago
Anonymous : Must of been a bribe
REPLY 9 2 months ago