# Justice Michelle C. Kim *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 2026-10-26. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 14 sources) Michelle C. Kim, a former Los Angeles County public defender and Superior Court judge, has sat on Division One since her unanimous confirmation in November 2024 [Associate Justice Michelle C. Kim biography; Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles]. The State Bar's evaluation commission rated her "exceptionally well qualified" [Associate Justice Michelle C. Kim biography; 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot]. From October 2024 to October 2026 she wrote 7 published majority opinions and no dissents or concurrences, all in civil, family or juvenile matters [Published opinions by Michelle C. Kim, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. Her opinions read statutes closely and decide narrowly: FEHA does not displace the presumption of corporate separateness (Oct. 2026) [Villasenor v. Schneiter (B337209, 2026-10-26; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)]; a jury trial begins when the venire is sworn for voir dire (Sept. 2026) [Wilson v. Johnson (B329690, 2026-09-22; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)]; LADWP's tiered water rates satisfy Proposition 218 (Dec. 2025), a ruling the Supreme Court has since taken up [Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2025-12-08; opinion by Michelle C. Kim); Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 12/8/25, published; review granted)]. Outcomes do not track party type: public entities won in Dreher and Krug and lost in O.B. and Lugo [Krug v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State Univ. (B320588A, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 4/1/25, published); O.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (B339555, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 7/31/25, published 8/27/25); County of Los Angeles v. Lugo (B344575, 2025-11-21; opinion by Michelle C. Kim); Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2025-12-08; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)]. ### Record highlights - Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 7 authored published opinions, 0 separate opinions; none criminal (published opinions only). [Published opinions by Michelle C. Kim, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Oct. 2026, Villasenor v. Schneiter: FEHA plaintiff must rebut the presumption of corporate separateness to collect from an owner; affirmed for the owner. [Villasenor v. Schneiter (B337209, 2026-10-26; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)] - Sept. 2026, Wilson v. Johnson: reversed a five-year-rule dismissal; trial began when the jury panel was sworn. [Wilson v. Johnson (B329690, 2026-09-22; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)] - Dec. 2025, Dreher v. City of Los Angeles: upheld LADWP tiered rates and the pay-under-protest rule, disagreeing with Patz v. City of San Diego; review later granted. [Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2025-12-08; opinion by Michelle C. Kim); Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 12/8/25, published; review granted); Good News for Tiered Rates: Court Upholds LADWP's Budget-Based Tiered Water Rates] - Nov. 2025, County of Los Angeles v. Lugo: a self-represented father's paternity set-aside request was timely under pre-2020 law, deferring to Judicial Council forms. [County of Los Angeles v. Lugo (B344575, 2025-11-21; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)] - July 2025, O.B. v. LAUSD: AB 218's revival of childhood sexual-assault claims against public entities is not a gift of public funds. [O.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (B339555, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 7/31/25, published 8/27/25)] - Apr. 2025, Krug v. CSU: Labor Code expense-reimbursement duty does not reach CSU. [Krug v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State Univ. (B320588A, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 4/1/25, published)] ### Stated positions - No campaign statements, interviews or questionnaire answers were found; her views appear only through her opinions. [Official Voter Information Guide: Second District Court of Appeal justices; List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026; 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot] ### Where sources disagree - One stored copy of Dreher notes the Supreme Court granted review; the other copy carries no such notice. [Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2025-12-08; opinion by Michelle C. Kim); Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 12/8/25, published; review granted)] ### Gaps - No criticism of her record from any source. - No separate opinions, oral arguments or interviews. - Unpublished opinions, most of her output, are not covered. - No criminal opinions in the published record. ### Arguments for / praise - Rated "exceptionally well qualified" before appointment. — *Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation* [Associate Justice Michelle C. Kim biography; 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot] - Dreher is a practical approach to administering tiered water rates. — *Best Best & Krieger* [Good News for Tiered Rates: Court Upholds LADWP's Budget-Based Tiered Water Rates] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Sample follows a fixed rule applied to every appellate justice: from the court's published-opinion listings (Oct 2024 to Oct 2026), all separate opinions (newest first, up to 3), then the most recent authored opinions, up to 5 texts. Kim has no published separate opinions in the period, so the sample is her 5 most recent authored majority opinions (court_opinion), July 2025 to October 2026: Villasenor v. Schneiter (S1, FEHA and alter ego), Wilson v. Johnson (S2, five-year trial deadline), Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (S3, Proposition 218 water rates; about 149,000 characters, read selectively), County of Los Angeles v. Lugo (S4, paternity set-aside deadline) and O.B. v. LAUSD (S5, AB 218 and the gift clause). All civil or family; no criminal opinions, dissents, concurrences, oral arguments or unscripted remarks. A text-and-precedent judge who decides narrowly. She starts from statutory text and the presumptions courts use to read it (against displacing common law in S1, plain language over headings in S3), and reads earlier cases for only what they decided (S1, S2). She defers to other institutions where doctrine directs: the Legislature's choices (S1), the Judicial Council's form interpretation (S4), and the trial court's unchallenged findings (S1). She will openly reject a sister court's majority (Patz in S3). Outcomes do not track party type: plaintiffs lose in S1 and S3 and win in S2, S4 and S5; public entities win in S3 and lose in S5. The sample does not support a political label. Articulation: **strong**. Prepared texts only. Each opinion states the question and answer in the first paragraphs, then builds the legal framework before applying it (S1, S2, S4). She meets the losing side's authorities one by one and explains why each does not apply (Williams, Arave, Flannery in S1; Kadota, Hartman, Hilliard in S2). S3 is very long, which its ratemaking record largely explains. Prose is plain, with occasional edge ("foist" in S3). Consistency: **adequate**. Across 15 months the method is stable: text first, presumptions applied as stated, precedent confined to its holding, and narrow dispositions. No position changes appear. Five civil opinions with no separate writing are a modest base, and there is nothing in criminal law to compare. - Statutes and the common law: A statute does not alter a common-law rule unless its text or evident purpose shows that intent; a general purpose clause is not enough. - "We conclude FEHA’s stated purpose does not manifest a legislative intent to alter the presumption of corporate separateness, because the presumption is compatible with FEHA’s purpose to provide effective remedies." [Villasenor v. Schneiter (B337209, 2026-10-26; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)] (2026-10-26) - Proposition 218 and tiered water rates: Rates must be proportional to cost of service, not traced parcel by parcel; tiered rates passing higher supply costs to heavier users are valid. - "The Constitution requires proportionality, not exactness." [Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2025-12-08; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)] (2025-12-08) - "We reject the Drehers’ attempt to foist onto the City a more stringent standard than the Constitution imposes." [Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2025-12-08; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)] (2025-12-08) - When a jury trial begins: A jury action is brought to trial when a panel assembles for voir dire and takes the section 232(a) oath, whether or not counsel have begun questioning. - "That the parties did not commence their examination does not alter our conclusion the action was brought to trial within the deadline." [Wilson v. Johnson (B329690, 2026-09-22; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)] (2026-09-22) - Deference to the Judicial Council: The Judicial Council's reasonable reading of statutes in its forms gets substantial weight, while the court may still point out the forms' gaps. - "Giving appropriate deference to the Judicial Council’s reasonable interpretation of statutes in adopting forms FL-280 and FL-281" [County of Los Angeles v. Lugo (B344575, 2025-11-21; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)] (2025-11-21) - "We encourage the Judicial Council to consider revising form FL-281" [County of Los Angeles v. Lugo (B344575, 2025-11-21; opinion by Michelle C. Kim)] (2025-11-21) - Legislative revival of claims against public entities: Reviving lapsed abuse claims is not a gift of public funds where the entity was already substantively liable. - "Because AB 218 did not create a new substantive liability, its revival of previously barred causes of action based on this liability did not violate the gift clause." [O.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (B339555, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 7/31/25, published 8/27/25)] (2025-07-31) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; most decisions are unpublished and this sample omits them. Majority opinions are joined by colleagues, so wording is not hers alone. No separate opinions exist in the period to show her views apart from a panel. Dreher was read selectively. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-26** — Published: Villasenor v. Schneiter (B337209, 2026-10-26; opinion by Michelle C. Kim) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-10-26** — Opinion filed affirming judgment for the owner (Kim, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-10-26** — Villasenor v. Schneiter filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-01** — Published: 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot (LAist) - **2026-09-22** — Published: Wilson v. Johnson (B329690, 2026-09-22; opinion by Michelle C. Kim) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-09-22** — Opinion filed reversing the dismissal (Kim, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2026-09-22** — Wilson v. Johnson filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-08-24** — Published: List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 (California Secretary of State) - **2025-12-10** — Published: Good News for Tiered Rates: Court Upholds LADWP's Budget-Based Tiered Water Rates (Best Best & Krieger) - **2025-12-08** — Published: Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 12/8/25, published; review granted) (CourtListener) - **2025-12-08** — Published: Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2025-12-08; opinion by Michelle C. Kim) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2025-12-08** — Opinion filed affirming (Kim, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2025-12-08** — Court of Appeal decided Dreher v. LADWP (Best Best & Krieger) - **2025-12-08** — Opinion filed upholding LADWP tiered water rates (California Courts) - **2025-12-08** — Published: Dreher v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (2d Dist., Div. 1, 2025, published) (FindLaw (opinion text)) - **2025-12-08** — Dreher v. City of Los Angeles filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-11-21** — Published: County of Los Angeles v. Lugo (B344575, 2025-11-21; opinion by Michelle C. Kim) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2025-11-21** — Opinion filed reversing (Kim, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2025-11-21** — County of Los Angeles v. Lugo filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-08-27** — O.B. v. LAUSD certified for publication (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-08-27** — Opinion certified for publication (California Courts) - **2025-08** — Published: O.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., Div. 1, 2025, published) (FindLaw (opinion text)) - **2025-07-31** — Published: O.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (B339555, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 7/31/25, published 8/27/25) (California Courts) - **2025-07-31** — Opinion filed reversing dismissal of O.B.'s suit against LAUSD (California Courts) - **2025-06-10** — In re A.O. filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-04-01** — Published: Krug v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State Univ. (B320588A, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 4/1/25, published) (California Courts) - **2025-04-01** — Opinion on remand filed affirming dismissal of Krug's section 2802 claim against CSU (California Courts) - **2025-04-01** — Krug v. CSU filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2024-11-25** — Published: Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles (California Courts Newsroom) - **2024-11-25** — Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmed Michelle C. Kim to the Second District Court of Appeal (California Courts Newsroom) - **2024-04-30** — Child support order entered (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2023-03-23** — Trial court dismissed the action under section 583.360 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2019** — Drehers filed suit (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2016-03** — City Council approved the challenged water rates (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) - **2015-03-24** — Voluntary declaration of paternity filed with DCSS (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1) ## Sources ### Villasenor v. Schneiter (B337209, 2026-10-26; opinion by Michelle C. Kim) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1 · court opinion · published 2026-10-26 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Kim, J. (Rothschild, P.J., Weingart, J.). Held FEHA does not displace the common-law presumption that a corporation is separate from its owner, so a harassment plaintiff who won against two restaurant companies could not collect from their sole owner without rebutting that presumption. Affirmed. - Starts from the strong presumption that statutes do not abrogate the common law (McMillin, Presbyterian Camp). - Finds FEHA's purpose clause and liberal-construction rule do not 'clearly and unequivocally' alter alter-ego doctrine; FEHA says nothing about alter ego. - Distinguishes the fee-asymmetry cases (Williams, Arave, Pollock, Ramirez): they construed FEHA's express fee provision and 'are not authority for propositions not considered.' - Notes the plaintiff did not challenge the finding that her evidence failed to rebut the presumption, and reached her new legal argument as a pure question of law. ### 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot - LAist · voter guide · published 2026-10-01 · stance: neutral - LAist's guide to the LA and Orange County appellate retention races explains what Court of Appeal justices do and lists each candidate with a State Bar evaluation rating. It lists Michelle C. Kim as an Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and rated "Exceptionally well qualified" by the State Bar (2022). - State Bar evaluation rating for Michelle C. Kim: Exceptionally well qualified (2022). - Appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. - Retention votes are yes/no; justices serve 12-year terms, and new justices may first serve the remainder of a predecessor's term. - Voters elect appellate justices by district, not division. - Reference: SoS certified list of candidates - Reference: Court biography of Michelle C. Kim - Reference: Appellate retention elections (California Courts) ### Wilson v. Johnson (B329690, 2026-09-22; opinion by Michelle C. Kim) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1 · court opinion · published 2026-09-22 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Kim, J. (Bendix, Acting P.J., Weingart, J.). Reversed a five-year-rule dismissal of a personal-injury suit: following Stueve v. Nemer, a jury case is 'brought to trial' when a panel assembles for voir dire and takes the section 232(a) oath, even if the parties have not begun questioning. - Holds the action was brought to trial on March 16, 2023, four days before the deadline. - Reads Kadota, Hartman and Hilliard as not deciding the narrower timing question, since questioning began the same day in each. - Cites the Trial Jury Selection and Management Act's definitions and the Standards of Judicial Administration (hardship questioning is part of voir dire). - Does not reach tolling or the plaintiff's due process objection to a one-night opposition deadline. ### 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 list of judicial ballot questions for the Nov. 3, 2026 election includes "Shall Associate Justice MICHELLE C. KIM be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" under the Second District, Division One. This confirms the justice is on the ballot. - Michelle C. Kim appears as a yes/no retention question for Associate Justice, Second District, Division One. - Second District voters: Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura counties. ### Good News for Tiered Rates: Court Upholds LADWP's Budget-Based Tiered Water Rates - Best Best & Krieger · third party analysis · published 2025-12-10 · stance: neutral - Best Best & Krieger, a firm that advises public agencies, summarizes Dreher v. LADWP (Dec. 8, 2025) as good news for tiered water rates: the court upheld LADWP's budget-based tiers, rejected Patz v. City of San Diego, and required payment under protest for refunds. It does not name the opinion's author. - Holdings as BBK describes them: supply costs may be allocated to higher tiers despite commingling; breakpoints need no cost basis; peaking costs may go to upper tiers; refunds are not presumed. - BBK notes the decision "vocally diverges" from Patz and may lead to Supreme Court review. ### Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 12/8/25, published; review granted) - CourtListener · court opinion · published 2025-12-08 · stance: not_applicable - ### Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2025-12-08; opinion by Michelle C. Kim) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1 · court opinion · published 2025-12-08 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Kim, J. (Weingart, Acting P.J., Adams, J.). Upheld LADWP's tiered residential water rates under Proposition 218's proportionality rule and held refunds of the invalid low-income subsidy charge required payment under protest (Health & Safety Code 5472). Expressly disagreed with the divided Fourth District decision in Patz v. City of San Diego. - 'The Constitution requires proportionality, not exactness': no duty to trace each water source to each parcel. - Adopts the Capistrano approach and the Patz dissent: higher tiers may bear the incremental cost of more expensive supply; tier breakpoints need no cost justification if rates do not exceed costs. - Plain text of section 5471 covers water charges; code headings cannot create ambiguity. - Finds no prejudice from excluding expert testimony absent any showing of what an expert would say. ### Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 12/8/25, published; review granted) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2025-12-08 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Kim, J. (Weingart, Acting P.J., concurring). Upheld LADWP's four-tier residential water rates under Proposition 218's proportionality rule and held ratepayers must pay under protest (Health & Safety Code § 5472) to get refunds. It expressly disagreed with the Fourth District's divided Patz v. City of San Diego decision. The header notes the Supreme Court later granted review. - Proposition 218 requires rates proportional to the cost of service, "not exactness"; agencies need not trace water from source to parcel. - Adopts the Capistrano approach and the Patz dissent: higher tiers may bear the incremental cost of more expensive supply. - Tier breakpoints need no cost-based justification so long as rates within tiers do not exceed costs. - Plain-language reading of § 5471 brings water charges under the pay-under-protest rule, rejecting the Drehers' reliance on headings and legislative history. - Leaves in place the trial court's ruling that the embedded low-income subsidy was unconstitutional; no refund without protest. ### Dreher v. City of Los Angeles (B329610, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 12/8/25, published; review granted) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2025-12-08 · stance: not_applicable - ### Dreher v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (2d Dist., Div. 1, 2025, published) - FindLaw (opinion text) · court opinion · published 2025-12-08 · stance: not_applicable - ### County of Los Angeles v. Lugo (B344575, 2025-11-21; opinion by Michelle C. Kim) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1 · court opinion · published 2025-11-21 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Kim, J. (Bendix, Acting P.J., Weingart, J.). Reversed an order denying as untimely a self-represented father's request to set aside a 2015 voluntary declaration of paternity. Deferring to the Judicial Council's form interpretation, it held pre-2020 declarations remain subject to the old deadline: a reasonable time, up to six months, after the first support order. - Applies Family Code section 4(e): validity of an order made before a law change is governed by old law; a filed declaration is equivalent to a judgment. - Gives the Judicial Council's interpretation in forms FL-280/FL-281 'great weight' (Sara M.) and finds it not clearly erroneous. - Rejects the County's legislative-intent (federal funding) argument. - Urges the Judicial Council to revise form FL-281, which omits the 'reasonable time' and 'initial order' limits; expresses no view on the fraud claim. ### O.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., Div. 1, 2025, published) - FindLaw (opinion text) · court opinion · published 2025-08 · stance: not_applicable - ### O.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (B339555, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 7/31/25, published 8/27/25) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2025-07-31 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Kim, J. (Rothschild, P.J., and Weingart, J., concurring), certified for publication Aug. 27, 2025. Reversing the trial court, it held AB 218's revival of lapsed childhood sexual assault claims against public entities does not violate the constitutional gift clause, because the school district was already substantively liable; AB 218 only removed the claim-presentation barrier. - Frames the test as whether the Legislature created new substantive liability or removed a procedural obstacle, following the First District's West Contra Costa decision. - Relies on Chapman v. State (1894): a statute giving a new remedy for a pre-existing liability is not a gift. - Holds claim presentation is an element a plaintiff must plead, not an element of the entity's substantive liability. - Does not reach the public-purpose argument. ### Krug v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State Univ. (B320588A, 2d Dist., Div. 1, filed 4/1/25, published) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2025-04-01 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Kim, J. (Bendix, Acting P.J., and Weingart, J., concurring), on remand from the Supreme Court. Applying Stone v. Alameda Health System, the court held Labor Code section 2802's expense-reimbursement duty does not reach CSU, so a professor who bought home-office equipment for pandemic remote teaching cannot recover from CSU. Affirmed. - Reads section 2802's undefined "employer" as ambiguous, then resolves it from statutory structure and history rather than policy. - Finds "positive indicia" of intent to exclude public employers: the Legislature expressly covered public employers elsewhere, never amended section 2802 to do so, and did so only for public-hospital training costs. - Decides without reaching the sovereign-powers maxim. - Rejects reliance on wage orders and Labor Commissioner (DLSE) letters by both sides. ### Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2024-11-25 · stance: neutral - Judicial Council news release announcing that the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Michelle C. Kim to the Second District Court of Appeal on Nov. 25, 2024, with short biographies of the three appointees (Hoffstadt, Kim, Richardson). - Kim fills the seat vacated by retiring Justice Victoria D. Chaney; LA Superior Court judge since 2018; deputy alternate public defender 2005-2018 and deputy public defender 2003-2005; J.D., UCLA. - Confirmed by unanimous vote of Chief Justice Guerrero, Attorney General Bonta and Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert. - Reference: Public documents from the confirmation hearing ### Michelle Kim - Ballotpedia · voter guide · published undated · stance: neutral - ### 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 2026 voter guide lists Michelle C. Kim as an Associate Justice of the Second District, Division One, among the 18 Second District justices on the retention ballot. The page is a roster only; it links to court biographies and gives no qualifications or evaluations. - Lists Michelle C. Kim, Associate Justice, Division One, Second District. - Second District sits in Los Angeles (Divisions 1-5, 7, 8) and Ventura (Division 6). - Reference: Court biography of Michelle C. Kim ### Kim rulings weigh what public agencies owe employees, litigants, ratepayers - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Published opinions by Michelle C. Kim, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Census of Kim's published opinions for Division One from October 2024 to October 2026: 7 authored majority opinions and no dissents or concurrences. - All 7 are civil or family/juvenile matters; none is a criminal appeal. - Several involve public entities: LADWP (Dreher), LAUSD (O.B.), CSU (Krug), Los Angeles County (Lugo). - Others: FEHA alter-ego liability (Villasenor), the five-year trial deadline (Wilson), a juvenile case (In re A.O.). ### Associate Justice Michelle C. Kim biography - California Courts (Second District Court of Appeal) · other · published undated · stance: neutral - Official court biography. Kim, on Division One since 2024, was a Los Angeles County deputy public defender and deputy alternate public defender who tried felony jury trials for indigent clients, then an LA Superior Court judge (criminal limited-jurisdiction supervision; unlimited civil calendars) appointed by Gov. Brown. - Nominated by Gov. Newsom; rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation; unanimously confirmed. - Former Head Deputy at the LA County Alternate Public Defender's Office. - Superior Court: Assistant Supervising Judge (criminal, limited jurisdiction), site judge, unlimited civil calendars at Spring Street and Stanley Mosk. - B.A. Stanford (American Studies); J.D. UCLA. - Vice Chair, LA Judicial Selection Advisory Committee; 2025 Judicial Service Award, Southern California Chinese Lawyers Association. ## 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.