# Justice Rashida A. Adams *legal · Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District retention · judge* — November 3, 2026 General Election (2026-11-03), Los Angeles County, California Research pack generated 2026-10-30T23:52:30+00:00 by ballotscope. Summaries are LLM-generated from the linked originals and may contain errors; check the originals before relying on anything. Sources span 2024-12-26 to 2026-10-15. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 14 sources) Adams has sat on Division Three since 2023 and was confirmed unanimously in August 2026 as its Presiding Justice; this vote is on that new term [Rashida A. Adams; Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments; Commission Confirms Four Appointments to Courts of Appeal]. Before the bench she litigated employment-discrimination and whistleblower cases, spent nine years as a Court of Appeal research attorney, and was a Superior Court judge from 2017 in dependency and criminal courtrooms [Rashida A. Adams]. She was rated "exceptionally well qualified" for both appointments [Rashida A. Adams]. Her published record from Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026 is 12 authored opinions and one dissent across civil, criminal, family, dependency, and workers' compensation cases [Published opinions by Rashida A. Adams, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. Recent rulings went to a media defendant (Netflix) [Onetaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc. (B339113, 2025-11-20; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)], a county agency [In re C.L. (B345433, 2025-11-17; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)], an insurer [Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency LLC v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez), B344044], and a Proposition 65 plaintiff [The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc. v. The Kroger Co., B341662]; her one dissent sided with a lemon-law consumer [Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (B331076, 2024-12-26; dissenting opinion by Rashida A. Adams)]. Reform California says do not retain; DSA-LA and the cahighways blog say retain [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County; November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices; DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide]. ### Record highlights - Census, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 12 authored published opinions and 1 dissent; 3 of the authored opinions are criminal. Published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished. [Published opinions by Rashida A. Adams, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Oct. 15, 2026, Sterndahl v. Sterndahl: dismissed a husband's appeal from a $45,000-a-month temporary support order as nonfinal because the trial court reserved power to modify it. [Sterndahl v. Sterndahl (B347548, 2026-10-15; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] - Apr. 29, 2026, Chemical Toxin Working Group v. Kroger: reversed dismissal of a Proposition 65 suit; listing outside counsel on the 60-day notice substantially complied. [The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc. v. The Kroger Co., B341662] - Nov. 2025, OneTaste v. Netflix: affirmed anti-SLAPP dismissal of a defamation suit over a documentary; no showing of actual malice. [Onetaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc. (B339113, 2025-11-20; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] - Nov. 17, 2025, In re C.L.: affirmed that ICWA did not apply; relatives' reported denials could be credited and one uncle's omission did not make the inquiry inadequate. [In re C.L. (B345433, 2025-11-17; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] - Nov. 10, 2025, Illinois Midwest v. WCAB: annulled an award of ongoing home care; medical-necessity disputes must go through utilization and independent medical review. [Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency LLC v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez), B344044] - Dec. 26, 2024, Carver v. Volkswagen (dissent): would have let a lemon-law claim proceed where the consumer refused a confidentiality term; the 2-1 majority, joined by then-Judge Hanasono, ruled for Volkswagen. [Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (B331076, 2024-12-26; dissenting opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] ### Stated positions - In her 2024 dissent: the Song-Beverly Act is remedial, and "Offering to settle a lemon law claim is not necessarily the same as complying with the Act." [Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (B331076, 2024-12-26; dissenting opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] - In her 2025-2026 opinions: deference to juvenile-court discretion on ICWA inquiries, review limited to the trial record, and undeveloped arguments forfeited. [In re C.L. (B345433, 2025-11-17; opinion by Rashida A. Adams); Onetaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc. (B339113, 2025-11-20; opinion by Rashida A. Adams); Sterndahl v. Sterndahl (B347548, 2026-10-15; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] ### Gaps - None of her three published criminal opinions is summarized here; the sampled texts are civil, family, and dependency cases. - No substantive criticism of her record from any source; the only opposition gives no reason. - No interviews, questionnaires, or statements in her own words outside opinions. - Nothing yet on her work as presiding justice beyond one October 2026 opinion. ### Arguments for / praise - No ethics or misconduct issues; 'exceptionally well qualified' rating. The blog relies on 'Google AI' summaries. — *cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] - Mostly inoffensive pre-appointment career in employment-discrimination and whistleblower practice; 'probably vote yes.' — *Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles* [DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide] ### Arguments against / criticism - Do not retain (no reason given; same call for nearly every Second District justice). — *Reform California* [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Systematic sample under a fixed rule applied to every justice: all separate opinions (up to 3), then the most recent authored opinions, up to 5 texts, from the court's published-opinion listings, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026. Adams has 12 authored opinions and 1 dissent in that window; the sample is 5 texts (1 separate, 4 authored), Dec. 2024 to Oct. 2026: her dissent in Carver v. Volkswagen (S5, lemon law), and majorities in Sterndahl (S1, family-law appealability, as presiding justice), Chemical Toxin v. Kroger (S2, Proposition 65 notice), OneTaste v. Netflix (S3, defamation/anti-SLAPP), and In re C.L. (S4, ICWA inquiry in dependency). None of her three published criminal opinions falls in the sample; no unscripted speech. Text first, with purpose used to resolve what text leaves open: S2 reads a regulation through the agency's stated objectives, and her S5 dissent reads the Song-Beverly Act as a remedial consumer statute to be construed to deliver its benefits. Strongly deferential to trial courts on discretionary and credibility calls (S4) and strict about appellate limits: appealability (S1), the trial record (S3, refusing 700+ pages of new evidence), and forfeiture of undeveloped arguments (S3). In S3 she applies the actual-malice standard as written, holding that denials and a one-sided documentary do not show malice. Outcomes cut across party types: a consumer side in the S5 dissent and a private Proposition 65 enforcer in S2; a media defendant in S3 and a county agency in S4. Articulation: **strong**. Each opinion states question and answer in its first paragraph, sets out the governing framework, then applies it point by point. Counterarguments are met on their own terms: S3 walks through each item of OneTaste's evidence and explains why it does not bear on Netflix's state of mind, and contrasts Collins v. Waters; S4 names the contrary Claudia R. decision. The dissent (S5) is compact, concedes the text's clear part ("The language of section 1793.26, subdivision (c) is clear and unambiguous on that point.") before locating the disagreement, and draws on Supreme Court precedent and legislative history. Prepared judicial prose only. Consistency: **adequate**. Five texts over 22 months in five unrelated fields, so no single position can be tracked over time. The method is steady: text first, purpose for gaps (S2, S5), and close adherence to standards of review and appellate limits (S1, S3, S4). Her dissent's purpose-based reading and her deference in majorities address different questions and do not conflict. No shifts found. - Lemon-law restitution and confidentiality terms (dissent): A manufacturer cannot avoid statutory restitution because the consumer refuses a confidentiality term the statute permits but does not require. - "VWGA’s offer was not one of unconditional readiness to comply with what the statute required assuming restitution was owed." [Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (B331076, 2024-12-26; dissenting opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] (2024-12-26) - "Offering to settle a lemon law claim is not necessarily the same as complying with the Act." [Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (B331076, 2024-12-26; dissenting opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] (2024-12-26) - Defamation of public figures: Denials and a publisher's one-sided presentation do not show actual malice; the plaintiff must show the publisher doubted the truth. - "OneTaste’s denials, moreover, do not constitute proof of probable falsity." [Onetaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc. (B339113, 2025-11-20; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] (2025-11-20) - "Nor was Netflix required to present an objective account of OneTaste." [Onetaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc. (B339113, 2025-11-20; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] (2025-11-20) - ICWA inquiry in dependency cases: Agency reports of relatives' denials may be credited without verbatim questions, and the adequacy of the inquiry is for the juvenile court's discretion. - "When a report indicates that a child’s relative has denied having Native American ancestry, it is reasonable for the juvenile court to infer that the denial was in response to a social worker’s question." [In re C.L. (B345433, 2025-11-17; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] (2025-11-17) - "Mother also does not suggest that interviewing the maternal uncle could potentially have filled a gap in the information DCFS already had." [In re C.L. (B345433, 2025-11-17; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] (2025-11-17) - Proposition 65 pre-suit notice: The contact-information rule is directory; listing outside counsel substantially complies. - "We find Pancho Villa's persuasive and conclude the 60-day notice in this case also substantially complied with section 25903." [The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc. v. The Kroger Co., B341662] (2026-04-29) - Appealability of temporary support orders: An order the trial court expressly left open to retroactive revision is not final and not appealable. - "We conclude that the order, which left the parties’ rights subject to revision at trial, was not final." [Sterndahl v. Sterndahl (B347548, 2026-10-15; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] (2026-10-15) - "We find no basis to “deem” the order at issue here to be appealable." [Sterndahl v. Sterndahl (B347548, 2026-10-15; opinion by Rashida A. Adams)] (2026-10-15) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; unpublished decisions and opinions she joined are not sampled. The sample contains none of her criminal opinions. Majority opinions are institutional products of a panel; only the dissent is hers alone. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-15** — Published: Sterndahl v. Sterndahl (B347548, 2026-10-15; opinion by Rashida A. Adams) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2026-10-15** — Opinion filed; appeal dismissed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2026-10-15** — Authored Sterndahl v. Sterndahl (B347548) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-14** — Published: DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide (Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles) - **2026-10-07** — Published: November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-08-24** — Published: List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 (California Secretary of State) - **2026-08-24** — Secretary of State lists Adams for retention on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot (California Secretary of State) - **2026-08-20** — Published: Commission Confirms Four Appointments to Courts of Appeal (California Courts Newsroom) - **2026-08-20** — Commission on Judicial Appointments confirms Adams as presiding justice (California Courts Newsroom) - **2026-08-07** — Published: Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom) - **2026-08-07** — Newsom nominates Adams as Presiding Justice, Division Three (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom) - **2026-08** — Confirmed as presiding justice, Division Three (California Courts of Appeal) - **2026-04-29** — Published: The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc. v. The Kroger Co., B341662 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2026-04-29** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2026-04-29** — Authored Chemical Toxin Working Grp. v. Kroger Co. (B341662) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-11-20** — Published: Onetaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc. (B339113, 2025-11-20; opinion by Rashida A. Adams) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2025-11-20** — Opinion certified for publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2025-11-20** — Onetaste v. Netflix (B339113) certified for publication (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-11-17** — Published: In re C.L. (B345433, 2025-11-17; opinion by Rashida A. Adams) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2025-11-17** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2025-11-17** — Authored In re C.L. (B345433) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-11-10** — Published: Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency LLC v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez), B344044 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2025-11-10** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2025-11-10** — Authored Illinois Midwest Ins. Agency v. WCAB (B344044) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-10-30** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2025-02** — Trial court denied modification and reserved jurisdiction to modify retroactively (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2025-01-03** — Appeals Board decision under review (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2024-12-26** — Published: Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (B331076, 2024-12-26; dissenting opinion by Rashida A. Adams) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2024-12-26** — Opinion and dissent filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2024-12-26** — Dissented in Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America (B331076) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2024-11-26** — Authored People v. Multani (B332945) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2024-10** — Husband sought to reduce temporary support (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2024-04** — Trial court granted Netflix's anti-SLAPP motion (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2023-11** — OneTaste sued Netflix for defamation (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2023-09** — Dissolution petition filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2023-04** — Confirmed as associate justice, Division Three (California Courts of Appeal) - **2023-01** — DCFS responded to a domestic-violence referral involving the family (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2022-11** — Netflix released the documentary (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2022-08-26** — Plaintiff served its 60-day notice (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three) - **2022-04-28** — VWGA sent repurchase offer (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2022-04-06** — Carver's counsel demanded repurchase (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3) - **2017** — Appointed to Los Angeles Superior Court by Gov. Brown (California Courts of Appeal) ## Sources ### Sterndahl v. Sterndahl (B347548, 2026-10-15; opinion by Rashida A. Adams) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3 · court opinion · published 2026-10-15 · stance: not_applicable - Writing as presiding justice, Adams dismissed a husband's appeal from an order refusing to lower $45,000-a-month temporary spousal support: because the trial court expressly reserved power to modify the award retroactively, the order was not final and not appealable. - Applies Freitas: an express reservation of jurisdiction makes a temporary support order nonfinal. - Treats the husband's reliance on the later judgment as "an implicit concession" that the order was not final when issued. - Declines to follow Last v. Superior Court's approach of deeming such orders appealable, and refuses to treat the appeal as a writ petition. - Notes the husband can raise the issue in his pending appeal from the judgment. ### DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide - Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles · endorsement · published 2026-10-14 · stance: support - DSA-LA's guide groups Adams among justices with "mostly inoffensive pre-appointment careers" and says voters should "probably vote yes," citing her employment-discrimination and whistleblower practice. - Adams is described as having worked for a firm specializing in employment discrimination and whistleblower cases. - Recommendation is a soft yes based solely on pre-appointment career. ### November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices - cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) · voter guide · published 2026-10-07 · stance: support - A personal voter-guide blog recommends retaining Adams, finding no ethics or misconduct issues; its discussion relies on "Google AI" summaries rather than primary records. - Recommendation: Retain (Yes). - Reports her "exceptionally well qualified" JNE rating. - Says she sits on the panel hearing rapper Tory Lanez's appeal and wrote an opinion in Paperman v. Besser flagging a citation to a nonexistent case. - Notes her pre-bench employment-discrimination and whistleblower practice. ### List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published 2026-08-24 · stance: not_applicable - The Secretary of State's official list of judicial contests for November 3, 2026 includes a retention question for Presiding Justice Rashida A. Adams, Second District, Division Three. - Ballot question: "Shall Presiding Justice RASHIDA A. ADAMS be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" - Listed under Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura). ### Commission Confirms Four Appointments to Courts of Appeal - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2026-08-20 · stance: neutral - The judicial branch announces the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Adams as Presiding Justice of Division Three, filling Justice Lee Edmon's seat. - Confirmed by unanimous vote of Chief Justice Guerrero, Attorney General Bonta, and Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild. - Confirmation is subject to the Nov. 3 retention vote, with a term beginning January 4, 2027. ### Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments - Office of Governor Gavin Newsom · news · published 2026-08-07 · stance: neutral - Governor Newsom's release nominating Adams as Presiding Justice of Division Three to fill the vacancy left by Justice Lee Edmon's retirement, among eight appellate nominations. - Adams fills the vacancy created by Edmon's retirement. - Her appointment to a term beginning January 4, 2027 is subject to the Nov. 3, 2026 retention vote. - The release identifies her as a Democrat. ### The Chemical Toxin Working Group, Inc. v. The Kroger Co., B341662 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three · court opinion · published 2026-04-29 · stance: not_applicable - Writing for a unanimous panel, Adams reversed dismissal of a Proposition 65 suit, holding that a 60-day notice listing outside counsel's contact information, rather than a person inside the plaintiff group, substantially complied with the regulation. - Holds Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25903(b)(2)(A)(1) is directory, so substantial compliance suffices. - Follows the Fourth District's Pancho Villa's decision. - Analyzes the regulation's purposes through OEHHA's Final Statement of Reasons; rejects defendants' reading of the Prang strict-compliance tests. - Rejects defendants' 'bounty hunter' deterrence argument as outside the regulation's purposes. ### Onetaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc. (B339113, 2025-11-20; opinion by Rashida A. Adams) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3 · court opinion · published 2025-11-20 · stance: not_applicable - Adams, for a unanimous panel, affirmed dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute of OneTaste's defamation suit against Netflix over its documentary "Orgasm Inc.": OneTaste showed no probability of proving actual malice. - OneTaste's denials, a friend's declaration, and a journalist's later email did not show Netflix doubted the truth of a former employee's abuse allegations. - Netflix relied on prior reporting by multiple outlets and sought OneTaste's comment; a publisher may "present but one side of the story" absent serious doubts. - Refuses to consider over 700 pages of post-ruling evidence offered on appeal through judicial notice. - Treats undeveloped constitutional challenges to the anti-SLAPP statute as forfeited and refers policy objections to the Legislature. ### In re C.L. (B345433, 2025-11-17; opinion by Rashida A. Adams) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3 · court opinion · published 2025-11-17 · stance: not_applicable - Adams, for a unanimous panel, affirmed juvenile-court findings that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not apply, holding that agency reports of relatives' denials of Native ancestry may be credited without verbatim questions, and that skipping one hard-to-reach uncle did not make the inquiry inadequate. - Rejects the argument that DCFS reports must document the exact questions social workers asked relatives. - Stresses deferential review: adequacy of the inquiry is "quintessentially discretionary" under Dezi C. - Distinguishes In re Claudia R., which found an inquiry inadequate where available relatives were not interviewed. - Unpublished part affirms denial of the father's section 388 petition for lack of changed circumstances. ### Illinois Midwest Insurance Agency LLC v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez), B344044 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three · court opinion · published 2025-11-10 · stance: not_applicable - Writing for a unanimous panel, Adams annulled a workers' compensation award of ongoing home health care, holding that disputes over the medical necessity of continuing treatment must go through utilization review and independent medical review, not the Appeals Board. The opinion rejects the Board's Patterson "ongoing treatment" exception. - Holds that Labor Code section 4610.5 makes independent medical review the only route to challenge a utilization-review denial, including for long-running treatment. - Rejects Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) to the extent it created a contrary rule for post-2013 injuries. - Declines to read approvals into section 4610(k)'s 12-month rule, citing the court's lack of power to rewrite statutes. - Corrects the Board's description of this court's summary denials as approving Patterson. - Footnote limits the holding to timely, fixed-duration requests reviewed through utilization review. ### Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (B331076, 2024-12-26; dissenting opinion by Rashida A. Adams) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3 · court opinion · published 2024-12-26 · stance: not_applicable - Adams dissented from a 2-1 decision that Volkswagen's prelitigation repurchase offer defeated a lemon-law claim; she would hold that a manufacturer cannot withhold statutory restitution because the consumer refused a confidentiality term. - Majority (Edmon, joined by Hanasono sitting by assignment) held a prompt, Act-compliant restitution offer satisfied the warranty duty and the implied-warranty claim failed for lack of damages. - Dissent: the Song-Beverly Act is remedial and should be read to bring its benefits into action, citing Niedermeier v. FCA. - Dissent: section 1793.26(c) permits confidentiality clauses but nothing shows the Legislature meant a consumer to forfeit restitution by refusing one. - Dissent distinguishes settlement from compliance: "Offering to settle a lemon law claim is not necessarily the same as complying with the Act." - Reference: Senate Judiciary analysis of AB 2410 (1998), cited by the majority (archived) ### New Division 3 presiding justice faces voters with record of rulings that cut both ways - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County - Reform California · voter guide · published undated · stance: oppose - Reform California, Carl DeMaio's conservative group, recommends DO NOT RETAIN for Adams, as it does for nearly every Second District justice, without stating reasons specific to her. - Adams: DO NOT RETAIN. - Of 32 Second District justices the guide lists, it recommends retaining three (Chavez, Rothschild, Yegan). ### Published opinions by Rashida A. Adams, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Census of Adams's published Court of Appeal opinions, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 12 authored opinions and one dissent, spread across civil, criminal, family, dependency, and workers' compensation cases. - 12 authored opinions; 1 separate opinion (a dissent in Carver v. Volkswagen, Dec. 2024). - Mix: civil litigation (Onetaste v. Netflix, Chemical Toxin v. Kroger, Koenig v. Centralia, Murphy v. Pina, Taylor v. LAUSD, Carver), criminal (People v. Thompson, Muhammad, Multani), family (Sterndahl), juvenile dependency (In re C.L.), workers' compensation (Illinois Midwest v. WCAB), and a writ proceeding (Arriaga v. Superior Court). - Most recent: Sterndahl v. Sterndahl, Oct. 15, 2026. - Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished and are not counted. ### Rashida A. Adams - California Courts of Appeal · other · published undated · stance: neutral - The court's official profile of Adams: Presiding Justice of Division Three, an associate justice there since 2023, with a background in employment-discrimination and whistleblower practice, civil litigation, nine years as a Court of Appeal research attorney, and six years as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge. - Practiced employment discrimination and whistleblower litigation in Washington, D.C.; civil litigation in Los Angeles from 2005. - Research attorney, Second District, Division Eight, from 2008. - Appointed to Los Angeles Superior Court in 2017 (juvenile dependency and criminal courtrooms). - Appointed associate justice in 2023 and presiding justice in 2026. - Rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission for both roles; confirmed unanimously in April 2023 and August 2026. ### Rashida A. Adams - Daily Journal · other · published undated · stance: neutral - ## Suggested use Ask me neutral questions about this subject using the material above. Distinguish what the sources say from your own background knowledge, cite the source titles you rely on, and say when information may be out of date given the dates shown.