# Justice Nicholas Daum *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 2025-04-16 to 2026-10-23. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 14 sources) Daum joined Division Four in August 2026 after serving on the LA Superior Court since 2022; before that he spent 19 years in private practice, mostly in media and entertainment litigation [Justice Nicholas F. Daum; Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission; Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission]. The JNE Commission rated him "exceptionally well qualified" [Justice Nicholas F. Daum; 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot]. The court's census lists 4 published opinions he authored from October 2024 to October 2026, all civil, with no dissents or concurrences [Published opinions by Nicholas Daum, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. They read statutes by their text, with mixed winners: a homeowner may sue a city over ADU delay [Shi v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, B350195 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/23/26), opinion by Daum, J.]; an employer's forced-arbitration agreement is unenforceable [Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/22/26), opinion by Daum, J.]; a city's design immunity covers claims that its warnings were inadequate [Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, B343512 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 9/24/26), opinion by Daum, J.]; a state nuisance case is not barred by the crime-free-housing law [P. ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties (B337891, 2025-04-16; opinion by Nicholas Daum)]. Reform California says do not retain; DSA-LA says voters "could vote no" over his corporate background; the cahighways blog says 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 - Published-opinion census, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 4 authored (three filed Sept. 24 to Oct. 23, 2026), 0 dissents or concurrences; all civil, no criminal cases; published opinions only. [Published opinions by Nicholas Daum, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Oct. 23, 2026, Shi v. Palos Verdes Estates: reversed dismissal; ADU applicants may sue under Gov. Code § 815.6 when a city breaches its ministerial-approval duty. [Shi v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, B350195 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/23/26), opinion by Daum, J.] - Oct. 22, 2026, Molina v. Triumph: an arbitration agreement required as a condition of employment in violation of Labor Code § 432.6 is unenforceable when the FAA does not apply. [Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/22/26), opinion by Daum, J.] - Sept. 24, 2026, Tansavatdi v. Rancho Palos Verdes: affirmed summary judgment for the city in a cyclist's death; design immunity may bar claims that approved warnings were inadequate. [Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, B343512 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 9/24/26), opinion by Daum, J.] - Apr. 16, 2025 (sitting by assignment), People ex rel. Soto v. Group IX: Gov. Code § 53165.1 does not bar a state public-nuisance injunction against a gang-plagued apartment complex. [P. ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties (B337891, 2025-04-16; opinion by Nicholas Daum)] - Confirmed to the Court of Appeal in August 2026. [Justice Nicholas F. Daum; Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission; Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission] ### Stated positions - In his opinions (2025-26): clear statutory text controls; legislative history and purpose are discussed as confirmation, and statutory exceptions are not extended beyond their terms. [P. ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties (B337891, 2025-04-16; opinion by Nicholas Daum); Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/22/26), opinion by Daum, J.; Shi v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, B350195 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/23/26), opinion by Daum, J.] ### Gaps - Under three months as a confirmed justice; four published opinions, all civil. - No record from his Superior Court criminal and civil courtrooms. - The two confirmation oppositions are described only by the blog; no primary record. - No statements in his own words outside opinions. ### Arguments for / praise - Rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the JNE Commission. — *California Courts of Appeal, LAist* [Justice Nicholas F. Daum; 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot] - Retain: no misconduct; the commission found two confirmation oppositions insufficient. The blog attributes these facts to 'Google AI.' — *cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] ### Arguments against / criticism - A corporate media-litigation background could be a reason to vote no, though DSA-LA concedes varied expertise matters. — *DSA-LA* [DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide] - Corporate-side experience may draw scrutiny from consumer and labor advocates, as relayed second-hand. — *cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] - Do not retain (no reason given). — *Reform California* [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Four texts chosen by the fixed sampling rule (all separate opinions, newest first, up to 3, then the most recent authored opinions, up to 5 total): 0 separate opinions (he wrote none in the period) and all 4 of his authored published opinions, Apr. 2025 to Oct. 2026. S4 (Soto, nuisance injunction) was written while he sat by assignment from the Superior Court; S1 (Shi, ADU permit delay), S2 (Molina, employment arbitration) and S3 (Tansavatdi, design immunity) date from his first weeks as a confirmed justice. All civil and all unanimous; three involve local governments. No criminal cases, speeches, or interviews. Textualist with confirmatory history. Each opinion starts from the statutory words and finds them unambiguous (S1, S2, S4); legislative history and purpose are then shown to point the same way, and in S2 he reads a statutory exception narrowly under expressio unius, refusing to imply exceptions the Legislature did not write. He prefers narrow holdings, adopting in S3 a rule more limited than either party sought and marking in S2 what the court does not decide. On deference to other branches, S3 grounds design immunity in keeping juries from second-guessing officials' engineering choices, while S1 holds a city answerable in damages for ignoring a mandatory permit duty. Results vary by party: a homeowner beat a city (S1), an employee beat an employer seeking arbitration (S2), a city beat a bereaved plaintiff (S3), and a city attorney beat a landlord (S4). No ideological label is supported. Articulation: **strong**. Prepared texts only. Plain, short sentences carry the holdings ('The PNL is a state law. Enforcing it is enforcing a state law.', S4). S2 opens by posing the question in plain terms, states the holding in a numbered three-part question, and sidesteps the burden-of-proof dispute by resting on the moving party's own evidence. S3 lays out the governing Supreme Court opinion at length before applying it, states the rule in lettered elements, and tests it against the plaintiff's strongest objections and the limiting case (Anderson). S4 rests on three independent grounds. Minor citation slips: S4 twice writes 'section 53615.1' for 53165.1, and S3 cites Tansavatdi I as '(2003)' and '14 Cal.4th'. Consistency: **adequate**. Four opinions on different statutes give no repeated issue to compare over time, so consistency of position cannot be tested. Method is uniform across them: text first, unambiguity found, history and purpose used as confirmation (S1, S2, S4), and narrow holdings that say what is left undecided (S2, S3, S4). No shifts found. - Local permitting duties for ADUs: Permit applicants are the direct intended beneficiaries of the ministerial-approval duty, so a homeowner can sue under Government Code section 815.6 for delay. - "Allowing permit applicants to receive the benefit of ministerial approval of an ADU without discretionary requirements and burdensome local regulations is not “incidental” to section 66317. It is the point of section 66317." [Shi v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, B350195 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/23/26), opinion by Daum, J.] (2026-10-23) - Mandatory employment arbitration under Labor Code section 432.6: An arbitration agreement required as a condition of employment is unenforceable under ordinary California illegal-contract law when the FAA does not apply; the statute's savings clause covers only FAA-enforceable agreements. An employer's statement that the worker could sign, negotiate out, or work elsewhere shows the agreement was a condition of employment. - "We see no ambiguity in the statute." [Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/22/26), opinion by Daum, J.] (2026-10-22) - "Thus, it is not plausible to conclude that the Legislature meant section 432.6, subdivision (f) to allow employers to enforce illegally formed arbitration agreements when those agreements are subject only to California law, and federal preemption is not at issue." [Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/22/26), opinion by Daum, J.] (2026-10-22) - "Indeed, these two “options” are simply another way of stating that Molina’s assent to an arbitration agreement was a condition of her employment." [Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/22/26), opinion by Daum, J.] (2026-10-22) - Government design immunity for warnings: Where an approved design included some warning, claims that different or additional warnings were needed may be barred; where no warning was given, immunity is not implicated. - "We adopt a more limited rule than urged by either of the parties." [Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, B343512 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 9/24/26), opinion by Daum, J.] (2026-09-24) - "Design immunity should apply where design is at issue—but not to cases, like the warnings in Anderson or Flournoy, where it is not." [Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, B343512 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 9/24/26), opinion by Daum, J.] (2026-09-24) - Crime-free housing law and nuisance enforcement: Gov. Code section 53165.1 bars local crime-free housing rules but does not reach a state Public Nuisance Law action, even one relying on police reports. - "The PNL is a state law. Enforcing it is enforcing a state law." [P. ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties (B337891, 2025-04-16; opinion by Nicholas Daum)] (2025-04-16) - "It is very unlikely that the Legislature intended to apply section 53165.1 to the enforcement of statewide law." [P. ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties (B337891, 2025-04-16; opinion by Nicholas Daum)] (2025-04-16) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; most decisions are unpublished, and opinions he joined but did not write are excluded. Four opinions, three from his first weeks as a justice and one written by assignment from the trial bench, are a thin basis. Opinions are panel products. Nothing shows his approach to criminal law or constitutional-rights claims. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-11-03** — Retention election (California Secretary of State) - **2026-10-23** — Opinion filed in Shi v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (B350195), by Daum (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-23** — Published: Shi v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, B350195 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/23/26), opinion by Daum, J. (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2026-10-23** — Opinion filed (published) (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2026-10-22** — Opinion filed in Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc. (B350252), by Daum (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-22** — Published: Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/22/26), opinion by Daum, J. (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2026-10-22** — Opinion filed (published) (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **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)) - **2026-10-01** — Published: 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot (LAist) - **2026-09-24** — Opinion filed in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (B343512), by Daum (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-09-24** — Published: Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, B343512 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 9/24/26), opinion by Daum, J. (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2026-09-24** — Opinion filed (published) (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2026-08-24** — Published: List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 (California Secretary of State) - **2026-08-10** — Published: Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission (Metropolitan News-Enterprise) - **2026-08** — Confirmed to Court of Appeal (Metropolitan News-Enterprise) - **2025-04-16** — Opinion filed in People ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties (B337891), by Daum (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-04-16** — Published: P. ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties (B337891, 2025-04-16; opinion by Nicholas Daum) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4) - **2025-04-16** — Opinion certified for publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4) - **2025-03-20** — Opinion filed (unpublished) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4) - **2024-01-01** — Gov. Code section 53165.1 (AB 1418) took effect (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4) - **2016-03-18** — Fatal collision (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) ## Sources ### Shi v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, B350195 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/23/26), opinion by Daum, J. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District · court opinion · published 2026-10-23 · stance: not_applicable - Published opinion by Daum reversing dismissal of a homeowner's damages suit alleging Palos Verdes Estates delayed his ADU permit over three years; ADU applicants are the intended beneficiaries of the ministerial-approval duty in Gov. Code § 66317. - "Allowing permit applicants to receive the benefit of ministerial approval ... is not 'incidental' to section 66317. It is the point of section 66317." - Found the text unambiguous but discussed legislative history "for the sake of clarifying." - Shi alleged damages exceeding $1 million; the case returns to the trial court. ### Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 10/22/26), opinion by Daum, J. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District · court opinion · published 2026-10-22 · stance: not_applicable - Published opinion by Daum affirming denial of an employer's motion to compel arbitration: when the FAA does not apply, an arbitration agreement required as a condition of employment in violation of Labor Code § 432.6 is unenforceable. - Held subdivision (f)'s enforceability exception covers only agreements "otherwise enforceable under the [FAA]." - Found the employer's own evidence showed a violation: an employee "free to accept the Arbitration Agreement, attempt to negotiate out of it or look for other employment" was required to arbitrate. - Declined to follow federal district-court rulings that relied on Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta. ### 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 Daum with five other former corporate-law partners (media and entertainment litigation) and says voters "could vote no" for that reason, while noting a variety of expertise on the appellate court is important. - DSA-LA lists Daum among justices who "were all partners in corporate law." - It hedges that varied expertise is important for the court's ability to decide higher-level cases. ### November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices - cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) · voter guide · published 2026-10-07 · stance: support - Blogger Daniel Faigin recommends Retain (Yes) for Daum, relaying a 'Google AI' summary: no misconduct; two public oppositions (an attorney and a litigant) filed at his August 2026 confirmation, which the commission found insufficient; and his media/entertainment litigation background. - Conclusion: Retain (Yes). - Two formal oppositions were submitted at his confirmation hearing; confirmation was unanimous. - Says his corporate/media background (e.g., Paramount, Viacom) may draw scrutiny from consumer and labor advocates. ### 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot - LAist · voter guide · published 2026-10-01 · stance: neutral - LAist explainer on Court of Appeal retention races; its Second District roster lists Nicholas Daum with a 2025 State Bar evaluation rating of "Exceptionally well qualified" and appointment by Gov. Newsom. No individual discussion. - LAist lists the State Bar (JNE) evaluation rating (2025) as "Exceptionally well qualified". - Retention questions are yes/no; per a state analysis LAist cites, no California appellate justice has lost a retention election since the system began in the 1930s. - Appellate justices sit on three-member panels reviewing lower-court decisions; they do not retry facts. ### Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, B343512 (2d Dist., Div. 4, 9/24/26), opinion by Daum, J. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District · court opinion · published 2026-09-24 · stance: not_applicable - Published opinion by Daum affirming summary judgment for Rancho Palos Verdes in a cyclist's wrongful-death case, answering the question Tansavatdi I left open: design immunity can cover claims that warnings in an approved design were inadequate. - Holding: where some warning was provided as part of a reasonable approved design, claims that different or additional warnings were needed may be barred by design immunity. - Adopted "a more limited rule than urged by either of the parties"; distinguished cases with no warning at all. - Reasoned that juries deciding the best form of a warning would intrude on infrastructure decisions reserved to public officials. - Also affirmed the City's expert-fee award under a valid § 998 offer. ### 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 - Official certified list of judicial contests for Nov. 3, 2026; confirms Associate Justice Nicholas Daum (Division Four) is on the Second District retention ballot. - Ballot question: "Shall Associate Justice NICHOLAS DAUM be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" ### Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission - Metropolitan News-Enterprise · news · published 2026-08-10 · stance: neutral - MetNews report: the commission (Guerrero, Bonta, Lui) approved Daum's move from LA Superior Court, where he had served since 2022, to Division Four. - Daum "will serve in Div. Four. He was a Superior Court judge since 2022." ### Nominations of Cody, Daum approved by commission - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2026-08-10 · stance: neutral - Courts newsroom item (reposting MetNews): the Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmed Daum's elevation from LA Superior Court to the Second District. - Confirmed the Friday before Aug. 10, 2026, alongside Tari Cody's elevation to presiding justice. ### P. ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties (B337891, 2025-04-16; opinion by Nicholas Daum) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4 · court opinion · published 2025-04-16 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Daum, then a Superior Court judge sitting by assignment (Zukin, Collins concurring), affirming a modified preliminary injunction in a Los Angeles City Attorney gang-nuisance case against a North Hollywood apartment complex. Gov. Code section 53165.1 (AB 1418), which bars local 'crime-free housing' rules, does not reach a state Public Nuisance Law action, even one built on police reports. - Three independent grounds: the PNL is state law, not an 'ordinance, rule, policy, program, or regulation'; a city attorney suing for the People is not a 'local government'; and the injunction targets property mismanagement, not penalties 'solely as a consequence of contact with a law enforcement agency.' - Finds the statute unambiguous but reviews AB 1418's history as confirmation: its target was crime-free housing ordinances and programs. - The City had already agreed to drop background-check and eviction terms from the injunction in light of the new law. - Filed unpublished March 20, 2025; certified for publication April 16, 2025. ### Published opinions by Nicholas Daum, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Census of Justice Nicholas Daum's published opinions, Second District, Division 4, Oct 2024 to Oct 2026, compiled from the court's listings with authorship read from signature blocks. He authored 4 published opinions and wrote no separate opinions (dissents or concurrences). All 4 are civil cases; three involve local governments (Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, a city-attorney nuisance action) and one an employment arbitration dispute. - 4 authored published opinions; 0 dissents or concurrences. - Three of the four were filed Sept 24 to Oct 23, 2026; the fourth (Soto) is from April 2025. - Case mix: ADU permit delay (Shi), public-entity design immunity (Tansavatdi), employment arbitration (Molina), public nuisance enforcement (Soto). No criminal cases. - Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished, and opinions he joined but did not write are not listed. ### Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County - Reform California · voter guide · published undated · stance: oppose - Conservative group Reform California's LA County slate recommends DO NOT RETAIN for Nicholas Daum, as it does for nearly every Second District justice (retain only Chavez, Rothschild, Yegan). No reasons are given for any justice. - Recommendation: Nicholas Daum — DO NOT RETAIN. - Same recommendation for all but three of the listed Second District justices. ### Official Voter Information Guide: Second District Court of Appeal justices - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published undated · stance: neutral - Secretary of State voter-guide index of Second District justices on the ballot; lists Nicholas Daum under Division Four and links to court biographies. Contains no evaluation. - Lists Nicholas Daum among the Division Four justices on the ballot. ### Justice Nicholas F. Daum - California Courts of Appeal · other · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Court biography: Associate Justice, Division Four, confirmed August 2026; LA Superior Court judge (criminal in San Fernando, then civil at Stanley Mosk); 19 years in private practice, mostly as a Kendall Brill & Kelly partner in media and entertainment litigation with an appellate practice. - JNE Commission rated him "exceptionally well qualified," its highest rating. - Pro bono work focused on voting rights. - Yale Law (Notes Editor, Yale Law Journal); master's in Modern European History from UC Berkeley; taught at Loyola Law School; Western Justice Center board president. ## 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.