|Court clerk Christina Arcuri with Judge Matthew Gary|
Under a cloud of controversy, in 2014 Gary and Arcuri were moved from a family law courtroom in the William Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse on Power Inn Road to a probate/mental health law courtroom in the same courthouse.
Court watchdogs assert that Gary and Arcuri are openly biased against self-represented litigants who cannot afford to hire an attorney, and who make up more than 70 percent of court users in family court. Court employee whistleblowers also allege that the pair have been engaged in an improper, long-term personal relationship for over ten years. The couple deny the claim.
After generating a number of complaints during the course of their assignment to the probate/mental courtroom, in 2015 Gary and Arcuri were again reassigned to hear trial and misdemeanor warrants and mental health hearings in Department 13 at the Gordon D. Schaber courthouse in downtown Sacramento. The pair reportedly also generated complaints in that assignment and have now cycled back to the family law courthouse, to Department 122.
In their prior family court stint, Gary and Arcuri were involved in a string of scandals, including
- Gary failing to disclose a conflict of interest involving his now-ex wife's software company.
- A full reversal by the 3rd District Court of Appeal of a judgment issued by Gary in the Seaton divorce case.
- Gary's premature removal from a family court supervising judge position by then-Presiding Judge Laurie Earl.
- Infighting after his removal as family court supervising judge, forcing the resignation of his successor, Judge Jamie Roman.
- Gary's forced removal from a family law case ordered by San Joaquin County Judge Xapuri Villapudua.
- The illegal in-court arrest of an indigent, self-represented, disabled family court parent, caught on a courtroom security video and subsequently leaked by a court employee whistleblower.
- Failing to report alleged obstruction of justice crimes by a prominent family law attorney with a history of misconduct.
- Issuing a series of allegedly illegal orders against an indigent, disabled parent who was self-represented because she couldn't afford to hire a lawyer.
- Attempting to obstruct an appeal of orders issued by Gary.
- Failing to report to law enforcement an alleged racketeering enterprise operating in the family court system.