# Justice Steve Goorvitch *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 2026-02-19 to 2026-10-14. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 12 sources) Goorvitch joined Division Two in 2026 after a decade as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge (from 2015); earlier he was a federal prosecutor and an SEC enforcement attorney [Justice Stephen Goorvitch; Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments 2.19.2026]. He was nominated Feb. 19, 2026 and confirmed unanimously May 22, 2026 [Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments 2.19.2026; Commission Confirms Five Appointments to Courts of Appeal]. LAist lists his 2025 State Bar rating as "Qualified" [2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot]. His published record so far is two July 2026 civil opinions and no dissents or concurrences [Published opinions by Steve Goorvitch, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]: one reinstated about $13 million in jury verdicts for two LAPD officers against the City [Glick v. City of Los Angeles, B334953 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/30/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J.], the other upheld family-court sanctions for delay [In re Marriage of Martinez & Camou, B345397 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/9/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J.]. Reform California says do not retain; DSA-LA says voters "could vote no" because he was a prosecutor; 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 - Census, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 2 authored published opinions, 0 dissents or concurrences, both from July 2026. Published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished. [Published opinions by Steve Goorvitch, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Jul. 30, 2026, Glick v. City of Los Angeles: reversed a new-trial order that cut two officers' gender-discrimination awards to $250,000 and $125,000, reinstating the $8.6M and $4.5M verdicts; held the trial court had effectively capped emotional-distress damages and confused admissibility with credibility. [Glick v. City of Los Angeles, B334953 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/30/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J.] - Jul. 9, 2026, Marriage of Martinez & Camou: affirmed $20,000 in Family Code § 271 sanctions; held parties must invoke European Beverage promptly. [In re Marriage of Martinez & Camou, B345397 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/9/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J.] - Confirmed unanimously to Division Two on May 22, 2026; LA Superior Court judge 2015-2026. [Justice Stephen Goorvitch; Commission Confirms Five Appointments to Courts of Appeal] ### Stated positions - In his 2026 opinions: no fixed standard caps noneconomic damages, and expert testimony is not needed for emotional distress within jurors' common experience. [Glick v. City of Los Angeles, B334953 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/30/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J.] - Litigants have an affirmative duty to raise procedural rights in time to avoid delay and cost (2026). [In re Marriage of Martinez & Camou, B345397 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/9/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J.] ### Gaps - Only two published appellate opinions, both civil and unanimous; no criminal rulings, dissents, or concurrences, and no unpublished decisions reviewed. - No JNE evaluation report itself; the 'Qualified' rating comes only from LAist. - No primary record of the confirmation opposition or the 2017 case the blog mentions. - No interviews, questionnaires, or statements in his own words outside opinions. ### Arguments for / praise - No ethics or disciplinary issues found; confirmed unanimously despite a litigant's opposition. The blog attributes its facts to 'Google AI.' — *cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] ### Arguments against / criticism - As a former federal prosecutor he may emphasize punishment and incarceration; DSA-LA says voters 'could vote no' while conceding a replacement would likely also be a prosecutor. — *Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles* [DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide] - Do not retain (no reason given; same call for nearly every Second District justice). — *Reform California* [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County] - At confirmation, a litigant objected that in 2023 he struck a disqualification motion against himself rather than letting another judge rule, as relayed second-hand. — *cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] ## 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. Goorvitch has only two published opinions in that window, both authored majorities and both from July 2026, so the sample is 2 texts (0 separate, 2 authored): a FEHA damages appeal against the City of Los Angeles (S1) and a family-law sanctions appeal (S2). No criminal cases, no dissents or concurrences, no unscripted speech, nothing from his trial-court years. Standard-of-review driven and tied to precedent and the record. He defers to fact-finders: S1 reinstates jury damages and reverses a trial judge whose new-trial order rested on legal error (a de facto cap on emotional-distress damages, admissibility confused with credibility); S2 upholds a trial court's credibility-based sanctions finding. He enforces procedural duties on litigants (S2's holding that parties must timely invoke European Beverage). Two civil cases cannot show a broader judicial philosophy or a view on rights claims. Articulation: **strong**. Both opinions lead with the holding, state the standard of review, and answer each argument in turn. Economical and concrete: S1 uses the trial court's own summary to show its 'scant evidence' premise was "belied by the court’s own summary of the evidence"; S2 dismisses a side argument in a line ("Martinez is missing the forest for the trees") and still addresses it. Prepared judicial prose only. Consistency: **insufficient_evidence**. Two opinions three weeks apart in unrelated fields. They do not conflict and both defer to the fact-finder, but two texts cannot establish consistency over time. - Noneconomic damages: No fixed standard or cap; a jury's award stands unless it shows passion or prejudice. - "The court’s reasoning is incompatible with case law’s rejection of a “fixed standard to determine the amount of noneconomic damages.”" [Glick v. City of Los Angeles, B334953 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/30/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J.] (2026-07-30) - "We are unconvinced that the noneconomic damages awarded here shock the conscience and require reduction." [Glick v. City of Los Angeles, B334953 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/30/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J.] (2026-07-30) - Expert testimony for emotional distress: Not required when the distress described is within jurors' common experience. - "But expert testimony is not required where, as here, “[t]he emotional distress to which [a plaintiff] testifie[s] is not beyond the common experience of the jurors.”" [Glick v. City of Los Angeles, B334953 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/30/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J.] (2026-07-30) - Litigant duties in family court: Parties must raise procedural rights promptly or face sanctions for delay. - "We hold that parties have an affirmative obligation to invoke European Beverage in a timely manner as necessary to avoid undue delay and increased litigation costs in marital dissolution cases." [In re Marriage of Martinez & Camou, B345397 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/9/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J.] (2026-07-09) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; unpublished decisions and opinions he joined are not sampled. Two civil majorities from his first months on the court, both unanimous, so the text reflects the panel as well as the author. Nothing on criminal law, constitutional rights, dissenting practice, or his trial-court record. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-11-03** — Retention election (California Secretary of State) - **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) - **2026-08-24** — Published: List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 (California Secretary of State) - **2026-07-30** — Authored published opinion in Glick v. Los Angeles (B334953) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-07-30** — Published: Glick v. City of Los Angeles, B334953 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/30/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J. (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2026-07-30** — Opinion filed (published) (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2026-07-09** — Authored published opinion in Marriage of Martinez & Camou (B345397) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-07-09** — Published: In re Marriage of Martinez & Camou, B345397 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/9/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J. (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2026-07-09** — Opinion filed (published) (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2026-05-22** — Published: Commission Confirms Five Appointments to Courts of Appeal (California Courts Newsroom) - **2026-05-22** — Confirmed to Court of Appeal (California Courts Newsroom) - **2026-05-22** — Confirmed by Commission on Judicial Appointments (California Courts of Appeal) - **2026-05** — Confirmed to Court of Appeal (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-02-19** — Published: Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments 2.19.2026 (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom) - **2026-02-19** — Nominated to Second District, Division Two (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom) - **2026-02-19** — Appointed to Court of Appeal (California Courts of Appeal) - **2023-09-20** — Original judgment entered (California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2015-11-13** — Appointed to LA Superior Court (California Courts of Appeal) ## Sources ### 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 Goorvitch with three other former federal prosecutors and says voters "could vote no" on that basis, while conceding federal prosecution includes fraud and white-collar work and that a replacement would likely also be a prosecutor. - DSA-LA: "We generally oppose appointing prosecutors to judicial positions since they tend to emphasize punishment and incarceration." - It hedges: Newsom "would likely appoint prosecutors to replace them." ### 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 Goorvitch, relaying a 'Google AI' summary: no ethics or disciplinary issues, a litigant's opposition at his 2026 confirmation, and his federal-prosecutor background. - Conclusion: Retain (Yes); "None of this is a reason for disqualification." - Relays that a litigant opposed his confirmation, alleging that in March 2023 he struck a disqualification motion against himself rather than letting another judge rule; the commission confirmed him unanimously. - Relays that a 2017 civil case with a terminally ill plaintiff and a parallel criminal case drew scrutiny of his handling. ### 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 Steve Goorvitch with a 2025 State Bar evaluation rating of "Qualified" and appointment by Gov. Newsom. No individual discussion. - LAist lists the State Bar (JNE) evaluation rating (2025) as "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. ### 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 Steve Goorvitch (Division Two) is on the Second District retention ballot. - Ballot question: "Shall Associate Justice STEVE GOORVITCH be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" ### Glick v. City of Los Angeles, B334953 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/30/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District · court opinion · published 2026-07-30 · stance: not_applicable - Published opinion by Goorvitch reversing a new-trial order that cut two LAPD officers' gender-discrimination verdicts against the City from $8.6M and $4.5M to $250,000 and $125,000; the jury awards are reinstated. - Held the trial court effectively capped 'garden-variety' emotional-distress damages, contrary to the rule that there is no fixed standard for noneconomic damages. - Expert testimony is not required for emotional distress within jurors' common experience. - The trial court "confused the admissibility of evidence with its credibility" in zeroing Glick's $621,358 economic award. - Rejected the City's cross-appeal that the awards shock the conscience. ### In re Marriage of Martinez & Camou, B345397 (2d Dist., Div. 2, 7/9/26), opinion by Goorvitch, J. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District · court opinion · published 2026-07-09 · stance: not_applicable - Published opinion by Goorvitch (Chavez, Richardson concurring) affirming $20,000 in Family Code § 271 sanctions against a spouse who stipulated to a bifurcated trial and then waited nearly eight months to invoke European Beverage. - Holding: parties "have an affirmative obligation to invoke European Beverage in a timely manner as necessary to avoid undue delay and increased litigation costs in marital dissolution cases." - Upheld the trial court's finding of "gamesmanship" and its refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing. - Rejected the argument that long-cause matters must be transferred: "Martinez is missing the forest for the trees." ### Commission Confirms Five Appointments to Courts of Appeal - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2026-05-22 · stance: neutral - Judicial Council release: the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Goorvitch to Division Two on May 22, 2026, with a career summary. - Confirmation was by unanimous vote of Chief Justice Guerrero, AG Bonta and Presiding Justice Rothschild. ### Governor Newsom announces judicial appointments 2.19.2026 - Office of Governor Gavin Newsom · news · published 2026-02-19 · stance: neutral - Governor's release announcing Goorvitch's nomination to Division Two, filling Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst's seat; lists his career and party (Democrat). - LA Superior Court judge since 2015; Assistant U.S. Attorney 2007-2015; O'Melveny counsel 2003-2007; SEC staff attorney 1998-2001. ### Published opinions by Steve Goorvitch, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Census of Goorvitch's published Court of Appeal opinions, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: two authored majority opinions, both civil and both from July 2026, and no dissents or concurrences. - 2 authored opinions; 0 separate opinions. - Case mix: one employment-discrimination damages appeal against the City of Los Angeles, one family-law sanctions appeal. - Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished and are not counted. ### 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 Steve Goorvitch, as it does for nearly every Second District justice (retain only Chavez, Rothschild, Yegan). No reasons are given for any justice. - Recommendation: Steve Goorvitch — DO NOT RETAIN. - Same recommendation for all but three of the listed Second District justices. ### Justice Stephen Goorvitch - California Courts of Appeal · other · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Court biography: Associate Justice, Division Two, since 2026; former SEC enforcement attorney, federal law clerk, O'Melveny & Myers lawyer, federal prosecutor (C.D. Cal.), and LA Superior Court judge from 2015. - Appointed to LA Superior Court by Gov. Brown on Nov. 13, 2015; presided over civil and criminal cases. - Appointed to the Court of Appeal Feb. 19, 2026; unanimously confirmed May 22, 2026. - UC San Diego and UC Berkeley law; was a high school teacher before law school. ### 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 Steve Goorvitch under Division Two and links to court biographies. Contains no evaluation. - Lists Steve Goorvitch among the Division Two justices on the ballot. ## 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.