# Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt *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 2024-11-25 to 2026-08-27. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 11 sources) Hoffstadt has sat on the Court of Appeal since 2014 and became Presiding Justice of Division Five by unanimous confirmation in November 2024 [Presiding Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt (court biography); Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles]. He is a former federal prosecutor and appellate partner who clerked for Justice O'Connor and writes and teaches on evidence [Presiding Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt (court biography); Brian Hoffstadt (faculty profile)]. Court listings show 11 published opinions he authored from October 2024 to October 2026 and one concurrence, no dissents [Published opinions by Brian M. Hoffstadt, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. Recent published rulings went both ways: he struck a sentence enhancement for a criminal defendant (August 2026, his most recent) [P. v. Santistevan (B345055, 2026-08-27; opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt)], upheld a pedestrian's $750,000 verdict against a city [Yan v. City of Diamond Bar (B339583, 2026-03-11; opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt)], and joined relief for a juvenile offender while writing that he would otherwise defer to the Legislature [P. v. Cabrera (B339998, 2025-05-30; concurring opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt)]; employees, an injured driver, and parents lost [Hu v. XPO Logistics, LLC (2026) B342355; In re Bella L. (2026) B348279; Husband v. Target Corp. (2026) B342334]. The sources contain no criticism of his record. ### Record highlights - Published opinions October 2024 to October 2026: 11 authored, 1 separate (a concurrence), 0 dissents. Published opinions only. [Published opinions by Brian M. Hoffstadt, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - August 2026: struck a great bodily injury enhancement on a battery count, following People v. Hawkins and declining to follow In re Jose H. [P. v. Santistevan (B345055, 2026-08-27; opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt)] - May 2026: held Target was not charged with knowledge of an employee's undisclosed bipolar disorder; summary judgment affirmed. [Husband v. Target Corp. (2026) B342334] - March 2026: affirmed a $750,000 verdict against Diamond Bar for a falling tree limb, allowing prior same-species branch failures as notice evidence. [Yan v. City of Diamond Bar (B339583, 2026-03-11; opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt)] - January 2026: affirmed termination of parental rights over an ICWA inquiry that skipped one relative; held a freight broker owed no duty to an injured truck driver (Justice Kim partly concurring). [Hu v. XPO Logistics, LLC (2026) B342355; In re Bella L. (2026) B348279] - May 2025: concurred in a juvenile-resentencing reversal, writing that Supreme Court precedent was "inescapable" though he would otherwise defer to the Legislature. [P. v. Cabrera (B339998, 2025-05-30; concurring opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt)] - Confirmed unanimously as Presiding Justice, Division Five, on November 25, 2024; Court of Appeal since 2014; Superior Court 2010-2014. [Presiding Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt (court biography); Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles] ### Stated positions - In his 2025 concurrence: on a clean slate he would defer to the Legislature's line between LWOP and lesser sentences, but follows binding Supreme Court precedent. [P. v. Cabrera (B339998, 2025-05-30; concurring opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt)] ### Gaps - No published dissent; only one short concurrence shows where he parts with colleagues. - Unpublished opinions, the majority of appellate work, are not covered. - His ten years in Division Two (2014-2024) fall outside the census window. - No campaign statement, interview, bar evaluation, or commentary from supporters or critics. - His books and Daily Journal columns are cited but not collected. ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Systematic sample: from the court's published-opinion listings (Oct 2024 to Oct 2026), all separate opinions (one) then the most recent authored opinions, up to five texts. That yields five texts, May 2025 to August 2026: a concurrence in a juvenile-resentencing appeal (S5) and four majority opinions as Presiding Justice of Division Five, in a criminal sentencing appeal (S1), a FEHA disability case (S2), a public-entity tree-liability verdict (S3), and an ICWA dependency appeal (S4). No dissent, no unscripted speech, nothing from his books or columns. Method: frames each case as one precise question and answers it in the first paragraph (S2, S3, S4). Reads statutes by their text and stated purpose (S1, S2) and follows binding Supreme Court precedent even against his stated preference: on a clean slate he would defer to the Legislature's line-drawing, but treats Contreras as "inescapable" (S5). Willing to disagree openly with another appellate decision when he finds its reasoning flawed (S1, rejecting Jose H.). Deferential to trial and juvenile courts' discretionary rulings (S3, S4). Outcomes in the sample run both ways: a criminal defendant won a stricken enhancement but lost a continuance claim (S1), an injured pedestrian kept a verdict against a city (S3), and a juvenile offender won a resentencing hearing (S5); an employee (S2) and parents (S4) lost. Five texts cannot establish a broader philosophy. Articulation: **strong**. Opinions open with the question and the answer, then lay out governing law before applying it (S2, S3). Counterarguments are numbered and answered one by one ("four further arguments," S2; "four arguments," S3). Rules are tested by their consequences, as with a supervisor who "has mastered the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" (S2). Disagreement with Jose H. is explained point by point (S1). The concurrence states its reservation in two sentences (S5). Prepared written texts only. Consistency: **adequate**. The same habits recur across five texts over 15 months: precise framing, close reading of governing standards, deference on discretionary calls (S3, S4), and adherence to higher-court precedent (S1, S5). His stated preference for legislative line-drawing (S5) fits his refusal to stretch FEHA beyond its text (S2). Issues do not repeat, so no position can be tracked over time. - Employer knowledge of an undisclosed disability (FEHA): Knowledge is imputed only when disability is the only reasonable reading of what the employer saw; erratic or irrational conduct alone does not suffice. - "an employer will be charged with knowing an employee has a disability only when the facts known to the employer make the disability “the only reasonable interpretation” of those facts rather than a reasonable interpretation or even the more or most reasonable interpretation." [Husband v. Target Corp. (2026) B342334] (2026-05-21) - Public-entity notice of dangerous conditions: Prior failures of same-species trees on the same maintenance grid are admissible to show a city's notice; requiring a citizen to witness the event would nearly immunize public entities. - "No special expertise is necessary to report a fallen limb or to infer that a limb found on the ground at the foot of a tree had fallen from that tree." [Yan v. City of Diamond Bar (B339583, 2026-03-11; opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt)] (2026-03-11) - Sentence enhancements: The great bodily injury enhancement cannot attach to battery causing serious bodily injury; Hawkins remains good law after In re Cabrera. - "we hold that section 12022.7 prohibits the imposition of the great bodily injury enhancement to an underlying count of battery causing serious bodily injury" [P. v. Santistevan (B345055, 2026-08-27; opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt)] (2026-08-27) - ICWA initial inquiry: Missing one relative does not defeat an otherwise diligent inquiry; the juvenile court's finding gets deference under Dezi C. - "this failure does not render the Department’s otherwise diligent and well-documented efforts unreliable or the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA did not apply unworthy of our deference." [In re Bella L. (2026) B348279] (2026-01-20) - Juvenile LWOP-equivalent sentences: Would defer to the Legislature's line-drawing, but follows the Supreme Court's holding that 50 years to life is functionally LWOP. - "Were the slate clean, I would defer to our Legislature’s decision as to where to draw the line between entitlement and non-entitlement to relief" [P. v. Cabrera (B339998, 2025-05-30; concurring opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt)] (2025-05-30) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work, and majority opinions are panel products. One concurrence is the only separate writing; there is no dissent. S1 and S3 are partly published; the stored texts include the unpublished parts. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-08-27** — People v. Santistevan filed (most recent authored opinion listed) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-08-27** — Published: P. v. Santistevan (B345055, 2026-08-27; opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2026-08-27** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2026-05-21** — Published: Husband v. Target Corp. (2026) B342334 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2026-05-21** — Opinion filed affirming summary judgment (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2026-03-11** — Published: Yan v. City of Diamond Bar (B339583, 2026-03-11; opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2026-03-11** — Opinion filed affirming (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2026-01-20** — Published: In re Bella L. (2026) B348279 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2026-01-20** — Opinion filed affirming (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2026-01-16** — Published: Hu v. XPO Logistics, LLC (2026) B342355 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2026-01-16** — Opinion filed affirming (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2025-08-13** — Juvenile court terminated parental rights (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2025-05-30** — Concurrence in People v. Cabrera published (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-05-30** — Published: P. v. Cabrera (B339998, 2025-05-30; concurring opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2025-05-30** — Opinion and concurrence certified for publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2025-05-13** — Published: Brian Hoffstadt (faculty profile) (USC Gould School of Law) - **2025-05-09** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2025-03-19** — Sentencing; continuance denied (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2025-01-24** — Jury verdict (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2024-11-25** — Published: Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles (California Courts Newsroom) - **2024-11-25** — Confirmed as Presiding Justice, Second District, Division Five (California Courts Newsroom) - **2024-10-16** — Trial court granted summary judgment for XPO (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2024-03** — Jury trial (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2024** — Began serving as Presiding Justice of Division Five (California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2022-11-02** — Plaintiff sued under FEHA (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2022-07-25** — Dependency petition filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2022-07-09** — Target decided to terminate plaintiff (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2022-07-07** — First workplace incident (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2020-03-21** — Truck crash injuring plaintiff (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five) - **2018-07-24** — Branch fell on plaintiff (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5) - **2014-08** — Joined the Court of Appeal, Division Two (California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District) - **2010** — Appointed Los Angeles Superior Court judge by Gov. Schwarzenegger (California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District) ## Sources ### P. v. Santistevan (B345055, 2026-08-27; opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5 · court opinion · published 2026-08-27 · stance: not_applicable - Hoffstadt's opinion affirms a battery conviction but strikes a great bodily injury enhancement attached to the battery-causing-serious-bodily-injury count, holding Penal Code section 12022.7(g) bars that pairing. It follows People v. Hawkins (1993), declines to follow In re Jose H. (2000), and rejects the Attorney General's argument that the Supreme Court's 2023 In re Cabrera displaced Hawkins. - Reads In re Cabrera as discussing but not overruling Hawkins. - Says Jose H. misread Hawkins's basis (section 654 rather than section 12022.7(g)). - Unpublished part: no abuse of discretion in denying a same-day sentencing continuance sought to obtain a mental-health report that "might" be favorable. ### Husband v. Target Corp. (2026) B342334 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five · court opinion · published 2026-05-21 · stance: not_applicable - Hoffstadt's published opinion holds, as a matter of law, that Target was not charged with knowing that an employee had undisclosed bipolar disorder merely because he behaved aggressively and irrationally on two shifts and a supervisor worried about his mental state. Without knowledge, FEHA discrimination, accommodation, and interactive-process claims fail. Summary judgment affirmed. - Knowledge is imputed only when disability is "the only reasonable interpretation" of known facts (discrimination) or obviously follows from symptoms (accommodation). - Offers drug use, medication effects, or sleep deprivation as other reasonable interpretations. - Treats a supervisor's untrained opinion that the employee "needed help" as relevant but not controlling, since the test is objective. - Rejects Ninth Circuit cases equating disability-caused conduct with the disability itself. - Declines to relax the knowledge requirement even though the employee was unaware of his manic episodes, noting employees may disclose voluntarily. ### Yan v. City of Diamond Bar (B339583, 2026-03-11; opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5 · court opinion · published 2026-03-11 · stance: not_applicable - Hoffstadt's opinion affirms a $750,000 verdict for a pedestrian hit by a falling Bradford pear limb in Diamond Bar. It holds the trial court could admit nine earlier branch failures from same-species trees in the same neighborhood to prove the city had notice, applying the relaxed similarity standard for notice evidence, and (unpublished part) that a neighbor's reports of fallen limbs were admissible. - Distinguishes the stricter similarity standard for proving a dangerous condition from the relaxed one for proving notice. - Rejects the city's species-variation argument as unsupported by evidence; the city called no expert. - Says the city's position would require courts to "jettison nearly a century of precedent." - Holds the city cannot complain of testimony it elicited on cross-examination. ### In re Bella L. (2026) B348279 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five · court opinion · published 2026-01-20 · stance: not_applicable - Hoffstadt's short published opinion affirms termination of parental rights, holding that a juvenile court's finding of an adequate initial ICWA inquiry was supported where the agency asked both parents and several relatives on both sides about Native American heritage but skipped the paternal grandfather. - Applies the Supreme Court's Dezi C. (2024): adequacy is reviewed deferentially and the agency need not ask everyone. - Lists the ten family members asked; all denied Native American heritage. - Finds the omission did not make the agency's "otherwise diligent and well-documented efforts unreliable." ### Hu v. XPO Logistics, LLC (2026) B342355 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five · court opinion · published 2026-01-16 · stance: not_applicable - Hoffstadt's published opinion holds that a licensed freight broker owed no duty of care to a carrier's driver paralyzed in a crash, because the broker neither performed the transport nor controlled how the carrier did it. Summary judgment for XPO affirmed. Justice Kim concurred except on the retained-control analysis, which she viewed as not raised on appeal. - Applies California's strong presumption (Privette/Sandoval) that a hirer owes no duty to an independent contractor's employees. - A nondelegable duty attaches to licensed carriers; XPO was a licensed broker and, even on a de facto theory, did not provide transportation. - Tracking shipments and setting delivery times are a broker's job, not control over safety. - Holds the Eleventh Circuit's Essex test for cargo damage irrelevant to personal-injury duty: "Essex is an apple to the pertinent law's orange." - Concurring, Kim (D.), J., would not have reached the retained-control exception, citing judicial restraint. ### P. v. Cabrera (B339998, 2025-05-30; concurring opinion by Brian M. Hoffstadt) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5 · court opinion · published 2025-05-30 · stance: not_applicable - Hoffstadt's short concurrence joins a unanimous reversal allowing a man sentenced to 50 years to life for a murder at age 15 to seek resentencing as if he had a juvenile LWOP sentence. He writes that on a clean slate he would defer to the Legislature's line between LWOP and other sentences, but finds the Supreme Court's Contreras holding that 50-to-life is functionally LWOP "inescapable and indistinguishable." The majority, by Justice Kim, rested on the Attorney General's concession. - Concurrence expresses deference to the Legislature on rational-basis line-drawing. - Follows binding Supreme Court precedent despite that preference; notes a contrary appellate reading in People v. Munoz (2025). - Published on request of the Juvenile Innocence & Fair Sentencing Clinic. ### Brian Hoffstadt (faculty profile) - USC Gould School of Law · other · published 2025-05-13 · stance: neutral - USC Gould faculty profile of Hoffstadt as a lecturer in law; it repeats his career history and notes his books and regular Daily Journal contributions. - Lists him as a Lecturer in Law and a teacher of judges, lawyers, and students. - Notes he co-authored Evidence Law: Practice, Problems and Policy and wrote California Criminal Discovery. ### Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2024-11-25 · stance: neutral - Judicial Council news release: the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Hoffstadt as Presiding Justice of Division Five on November 25, 2024, succeeding retired Presiding Justice Laurence D. Rubin. Gives his career dates. - Unanimous vote of Chief Justice Guerrero, Attorney General Bonta, and Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert. - Career dates: Superior Court 2010-2014; Jones Day partner 2007-2010; Assistant U.S. Attorney 2000-2007; DOJ Office of Policy Development 1998-2000; FCC 1997-1998; O'Connor clerkship 1996-1997. ### Published opinions by Brian M. Hoffstadt, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - The court's published-opinion listings for October 2024 to October 2026 show 11 opinions Hoffstadt authored and 1 separate opinion (a concurrence in People v. Cabrera). The listing gives case names only; by name, the authored opinions include one criminal appeal (People v. Santistevan), two juvenile cases (In re Bella L., In re X.D.), one writ proceeding, one probate matter, and civil suits against businesses, a law firm, and two public entities. - Authored: 11; separate opinions: 1 (concurring, People v. Cabrera, 2025-05-30); no dissents. - Most recent authored: People v. Santistevan (2026-08-27); earliest: Estate of St. John v. Schaeffler (2025-03-21). - Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished and do not appear. ### Official Voter Information Guide: Second District Court of Appeal justices - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published undated · stance: neutral - The Secretary of State's official guide lists Brian M. Hoffstadt, Presiding Justice, Division Five, among the Second District justices on the retention ballot. Names and divisions only, each linked to the court's biography. - Hoffstadt is the only Division Five justice listed. - No qualifications, ratings, or arguments appear on this page. - Reference: Court biography of Brian M. Hoffstadt ### Presiding Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt (court biography) - California Courts of Appeal, Second Appellate District · other · published undated · stance: neutral - The court's official profile: on the Court of Appeal since August 2014, ten years in Division Two and Presiding Justice of Division Five since 2024. A former federal prosecutor, Jones Day appellate partner, and Superior Court judge (2010-2014) who clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and a prolific author and teacher on evidence and criminal discovery. - Appointed by governors of both parties: Schwarzenegger (Superior Court, 2010), Brown (Division Two), Newsom (Presiding Justice, Division Five). - Six years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, including criminal appeals before the Ninth Circuit. - Author of California Criminal Discovery and co-author of Evidence Law: Practice, Problems, and Policy; nearly 100 Daily Journal columns; law review articles. - Elected to the American Law Institute in 2018; adviser on the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Defamation and Privacy. - Teaches Evidence at USC Gould; Judicial College faculty since 2012. ## 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.