# Justice Gonzalo C. Martinez *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 2024-05-14 to 2026-10-07. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 13 sources) Gonzalo C. Martinez joined Division Seven in 2023 and was confirmed 3-0 as its Presiding Justice in 2024, after serving as a deputy solicitor general and as Gov. Newsom's deputy judicial appointments secretary [Presiding Justice Gonzalo C. Martinez (court biography); Panel confirms gay CA appellate presiding justice Martinez]. From October 2024 to October 2026 he wrote 12 published opinions (about nine distinct cases) and no published dissents or concurrences [Published opinions by Gonzalo C. Martinez, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. His recent opinions are unanimous, civil, and narrowly framed, and their outcomes do not favor one side: he set aside Los Angeles County's approval of Tejon Ranch's Centennial project over a misleading cap-and-trade emissions analysis while rejecting the environmental groups' other claims (2025) [Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (B330610, 2025-06-26; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez); California appeals court blocks massive housing project over climate risks]; upheld advance written meal-break waivers for an employer (2025) [Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (B322799M, 2025-05-20; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez); Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating (B322799N, 2025-05-21; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)]; vacated statewide injunctions two charities had won against the Attorney General because they never pleaded or proved a right to them (2025) [Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta (B315409M, 2025-03-27; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)]; required the County to bargain with a deputies' union before outsourcing (2026) [L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn. v. County of L.A. (B338182, 2026-04-10; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)]; and upheld Los Angeles's eviction threshold while striking its relocation-fee ordinance (2026) [Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles (B336071)]. At his 2024 confirmation, supporters praised him while two jurists noted his short appellate tenure [Panel confirms gay CA appellate presiding justice Martinez]. Reform California opposes retention without reasons; blogger Daniel Faigin supports it [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County; November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices]. ### Record highlights - Oct 2024 to Oct 2026: 12 published authored opinions and 0 published separate opinions; repeat versions (Bradsbery three times, Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta twice) leave about nine distinct cases, mostly civil and public law. Published opinions only; none listed after May 2026. [Published opinions by Gonzalo C. Martinez, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Apr/May 2026, Apartment Assn. v. City of Los Angeles: upheld the City's eviction threshold as within its police power; held the relocation-assistance ordinance preempted by Costa-Hawkins, following the division's Pasadena precedent. [Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles (B336071)] - Apr 2026, L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn. v. County of L.A.: reversed and ordered the County to meet and confer before outsourcing security work; the MOU's 'any reorganization' clause was too vague to waive bargaining rights. [L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn. v. County of L.A. (B338182, 2026-04-10; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] - June 2025, Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles: affirmed setting aside the Centennial project approval; the EIR wrongly counted suppliers' cap-and-trade compliance against 96 percent of the project's emissions and inadequately analyzed off-site wildfire risk; the groups' wildlife, vegetation, and alternatives claims failed. [Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (B330610, 2025-06-26; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez); California appeals court blocks massive housing project over climate risks] - Apr/May 2025, Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating: affirmed for the employer, holding revocable prospective written waivers of the meal period for five-to-six-hour shifts enforceable absent coercion or unconscionability. [Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (B322799M, 2025-05-20; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez); Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating (B322799N, 2025-05-21; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] - Mar 2025, Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta: vacated permanent injunctions barring the Attorney General from enforcing parts of the charitable-solicitation law, holding injunctions are not automatic even in First Amendment cases; affirmed the trial court's reformation and severance of the cease-and-desist provision. [Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta (B315409M, 2025-03-27; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] ### Stated positions - At his May 2024 confirmation: 'I will pause and think about whether what I am doing is the right thing under the circumstances and the law.' [Panel confirms gay CA appellate presiding justice Martinez] - His opinions repeatedly limit holdings to the case at hand, for example declining to decide whether a city may eliminate nonpayment as a ground for eviction (2026) and reserving coerced or irrevocable meal-break waivers (2025). [Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles (B336071); Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (B322799M, 2025-05-20; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez); Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating (B322799N, 2025-05-21; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] ### Where sources disagree - Faigin attributes his 'well qualified' rating to the State Bar; the Bay Area Reporter attributes it to the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation. [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices; Panel confirms gay CA appellate presiding justice Martinez] ### Gaps - No published dissents or concurrences, so nothing shows where he disagrees with colleagues. - No criminal, family, or dependency opinions in the sample; the census lists only three such captions. - Unpublished opinions, most of his output, are not collected. - No interviews or statements since his 2024 confirmation, and no substantive argument against retention. ### Arguments for / praise - Praised at confirmation as 'measured, matter of fact, collaborative, and insightful', with a 'well qualified' rating and no objections among 13 people contacted. — *Bay Area Reporter (reporting supporters including Ana Matosantos and 15 bar associations)* [Panel confirms gay CA appellate presiding justice Martinez] - Recommends retention, finding no scandals or discipline (drawing on AI-generated summaries). — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] - Called the Centennial ruling 'a victory for Los Angeles and California.' — *Center for Biological Diversity* [California appeals court blocks massive housing project over climate risks] ### Arguments against / criticism - Recommends DO NOT RETAIN, as for 30 of 33 Second District justices, with no reasons. — *Reform California* [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County] - In 2024 two unnamed jurists said his short appellate tenure could make the presiding role challenging at first. — *Bay Area Reporter (anonymous jurists)* [Panel confirms gay CA appellate presiding justice Martinez] - Notes his ties to the Governor's office draw 'standard philosophical scrutiny' about independence from the executive, without citing any opinion. — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Five published Division Seven opinions, March 2025 to April 2026, chosen by a fixed rule applied to every justice and counted by case (modification orders do not take slots): all separate opinions from his Oct 2024 to Oct 2026 published listings (he has none), then his five most recent authored opinions: tenant ordinances [S1], public-sector bargaining [S2], CEQA [S3], wage-and-hour [S4], and injunctions and statutory reformation in a First Amendment challenge to the charitable-solicitation law [S5]. All are civil and unanimous; long opinions (S1, S3, S5) were read selectively. No dissents, concurrences, speeches, or interviews. Method-driven and narrow. He starts with text, reads documents as a whole, and turns to legislative and administrative history only when the text supports more than one reading [S4]. He places burdens explicitly on the party asserting an exception or waiver [S2]. He enforces procedural requirements strictly against government (CEQA's additionality rule against the County [S3]; a 'clear and unmistakable' waiver standard against the County as employer [S2]) while deferring to agencies on factual and policy choices (alternatives analysis [S3]) and to cities' police power over eviction grounds [S1]. He follows his division's own precedent [S1], repeatedly limits holdings to the facts before the court [S1, S4], and treats remedies as requiring their own pleading and proof, vacating injunctions charities won against the Attorney General while preserving a reformed statute [S5]. Outcomes do not track one side: a union, environmental groups, and the City partly won; an employer, landlords (on relocation fees), and the Attorney General (on remedy) also won. Articulation: **strong**. Prepared texts only. Opinions state the holding up front, set out each side's argument (including amici's) before resolving it, and work through text, structure, and history in order [S1, S4]. Distinctions are concrete: S3 separates the refinery in AIR, itself a covered entity, from a housing project that is not; S4 shows why Brinker 'did not address' waiver timing. S2 answers the County's dictionary argument with case law on waiver standards. Weaknesses: heavy reliance on block quotations from prior opinions, notably the division's Pasadena decision in S1; S3 is very long. With no separate opinions, his individual voice cannot be separated from the panel's. Consistency: **adequate**. Method is uniform across the five opinions (March 2025 to April 2026): plain text, whole-document reading, explicit burdens, narrow holdings. No contradictions found, and no shift in approach. The sample is too small and too short to judge consistency over time, and all five are unanimous civil cases. - Local tenant protections and state preemption: A city may set a monetary threshold before eviction for nonpayment as a substantive ground-for-eviction rule, but relocation payments triggered by lawful rent increases are preempted by Costa-Hawkins [S1]. - "As a substantive regulation of the basis for eviction in the City of Los Angeles, the ordinance squarely falls within the City’s broad police power." [Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles (B336071)] (2026-04-15) - "the burden it places on the exercise of statutory rights under the Costa-Hawkins Act attempts to prohibit, or at least restrict, lawful conduct permitted by state law" [Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles (B336071)] (2026-04-15) - Public-employee bargaining rights: A union waives statutory bargaining rights only by clear, specific language; a general management-rights clause is not enough [S2]. - "The “any reorganization” language in the MOU is vague and ambiguous, falling short of the requirement that any waiver of statutory rights be clear and unmistakable." [L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn. v. County of L.A. (B338182, 2026-04-10; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] (2026-04-10) - Climate analysis under CEQA: A land-use project cannot count energy suppliers' mandatory cap-and-trade compliance as offsetting its own emissions [S3]. - "The project itself is not a covered entity under the cap-and-trade program" [Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (B330610, 2025-06-26; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] (2025-06-26) - "an offset cannot be credited both to the covered entities’ regulatory compliance and to the Centennial project’s emissions" [Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (B330610, 2025-06-26; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] (2025-06-26) - Meal-period waivers: Revocable written waivers signed in advance are valid for five-to-six-hour shifts, absent coercion or unconscionability, which the court reserves [S4]. - "The text and legislative and administrative history do not support these arguments." [Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating (B322799N, 2025-05-21; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] (2025-05-21) - "While we would hesitate to uphold a prospective written waiver under such circumstances, this case does not present them." [Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating (B322799N, 2025-05-21; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] (2025-05-21) - Remedies against the government: A plaintiff who wins a constitutional ruling still must plead and prove entitlement to a permanent injunction; a court may reform and sever a statute to save it [S5]. - "Permanent injunctions are not issued as a matter of course, even in cases implicating the First Amendment." [Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta (B315409M, 2025-03-27; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] (2025-03-27) - "These cases reflect that reformation and severance are not mutually exclusive tools, as respondents argue, and that they may be used in combination." [Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta (B315409M, 2025-03-27; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez)] (2025-03-27) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; his 12 published authored opinions in the period (per the census listing, about nine distinct cases) are a fraction of his decisions, and he wrote no published separate opinions, so the sample cannot show where he disagrees with colleagues. No criminal, family, or dependency case is included, and all opinions are joined by colleagues. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-07** — Published: November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-05-14** — Opinion modified and certified for partial publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2026-05-14** — Apartment Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (B336071) listed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-04-17** — Published: Court gives landlords partial victory in rental laws (The Real Deal) - **2026-04-15** — Published: Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles (B336071) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2026-04-15** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2026-04-10** — Published: L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn. v. County of L.A. (B338182, 2026-04-10; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2026-04-10** — Opinion certified for publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2026-04-10** — L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn. v. County of L.A. (B338182) listed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-03-13** — Court of Appeal reversed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-06-26** — Published: Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (FindLaw (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven)) - **2025-06-26** — Published: Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (B330610, 2025-06-26; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-06-26** — Court of Appeal affirmed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-06-26** — Published: California appeals court blocks massive housing project over climate risks (Courthouse News Service) - **2025-06-26** — Court of Appeal decision in the Centennial case (Courthouse News Service) - **2025-06-26** — Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (B330610) listed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-05-21** — Published: Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating (B322799N, 2025-05-21; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-05-21** — Second order modifying the opinion (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-05-20** — Published: Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (B322799M, 2025-05-20; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-05-20** — First order modifying the opinion (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-04-21** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-04-21** — Court of Appeal affirmed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-04** — Oral argument (Courthouse News Service) - **2025-03-27** — Published: Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta (B315409M, 2025-03-27; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-03-27** — Opinion modified; rehearing denied (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025-03-05** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2025** — Elected to the American Law Institute (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) - **2024-05-14** — Published: Panel confirms gay CA appellate presiding justice Martinez (Bay Area Reporter) - **2024-05-14** — Confirmed and sworn in as Presiding Justice, Second District, Division Seven (Bay Area Reporter) - **2024-05** — Elevated to Presiding Justice of Division Seven (per the guide) (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2024** — Confirmed as Presiding Justice, Division Seven (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) - **2023-03-27** — Both ordinances took effect (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2023** — Appointed Associate Justice, Division Seven (Bay Area Reporter) - **2023** — Became Associate Justice, Second District, Division Seven (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) - **2021-05** — PPOA learned the County planned to outsource Hall of Administration security work (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2021-04** — Superior court ruled the approval violated CEQA (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2019-04-30** — Board of Supervisors certified the EIR and approved the project (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2009-04** — Plaintiffs signed written meal-period waivers (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) ## Sources ### November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices - cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) · voter guide · published 2026-10-07 · stance: support - Blogger Daniel Faigin's ballot analysis recommends retaining Martinez, finding nothing disqualifying. His discussion is drawn explicitly from 'Google AI' output. - Conclusion: Retain (Yes). - Reports, from Google AI, no ethical scandals or discipline and a unanimous 2024 confirmation as Division Seven's presiding justice. - Notes his prior roles as Newsom's deputy judicial appointments secretary and as a deputy solicitor general, saying such ties draw 'standard philosophical scrutiny' about independence from the executive. ### Court gives landlords partial victory in rental laws - The Real Deal · news · published 2026-04-17 · stance: neutral - ### Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles (B336071) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven · court opinion · published 2026-04-15 · stance: not_applicable - Martinez wrote for Division Seven upholding Los Angeles's Eviction Threshold Ordinance (no nonpayment eviction until a tenant owes more than one month's fair market rent) against Unlawful Detainer Act preemption, while striking the city's Relocation Assistance Ordinance as preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Act. - Eviction threshold: a substantive defense ('a substantive defense with an impact on timing,' quoting SFAA 2018), not a procedural barrier, so it is within the city's police power; distinguishes the notice-and-cure rules struck in Pasadena (2025) and SFAA (2024). - Expressly reserves whether a city may eliminate nonpayment as a ground for eviction: 'is not before us.' - Relocation assistance (three months' fair market rent when a tenant leaves after a large lawful rent increase): 'financially penalizes landlords' for rights Costa-Hawkins grants and is not saved by the 'basis for eviction' clause; the city conceded this under Pasadena. - Rejects intervenors' argument that Pasadena misapplied Riverside, relying on Chevron v. County of Monterey (2023). The relocation part (D) was later left unpublished. ### L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn. v. County of L.A. (B338182, 2026-04-10; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7 · court opinion · published 2026-04-10 · stance: not_applicable - Presiding Justice Martinez's opinion for a unanimous Division Seven panel ordering Los Angeles County to bargain with the Professional Peace Officers Association before outsourcing security work at the Hall of Administration. A union's waiver of statutory bargaining rights must be 'clear and unmistakable', and the MOU's clause that management need not negotiate 'any reorganization' was too vague to waive bargaining over contracting out. - Under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, outsourcing that adversely affects a bargaining unit is a mandatory bargaining subject; the County bore the burden to prove waiver. - The MOU's notice provisions on transfer of functions say nothing about the bargaining right, so they waive nothing. - The 'any reorganization' clause is 'vague and ambiguous' and can reasonably be read to preserve only core management decisions such as layoffs; general management-rights clauses preserve prerogatives rather than waive bargaining rights. - Reverses a trial court and the County's labor commission (ERCOM), both of which had relied on dictionary definitions of 'reorganization.' ### Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles - FindLaw (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) · court opinion · published 2025-06-26 · stance: not_applicable - ### Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles (B330610, 2025-06-26; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7 · court opinion · published 2025-06-26 · stance: not_applicable - Presiding Justice Martinez's opinion for a unanimous panel affirming a judgment that set aside Los Angeles County's approval of Tejon Ranch's Centennial project, about 19,333 homes on 12,000 acres in the Antelope Valley. The published part holds the environmental impact report was prejudicially misleading because it counted energy suppliers' cap-and-trade compliance as offsetting 96 percent of the project's emissions. The unpublished part also finds the off-site wildfire analysis inadequate but rejects the environmental groups' cross-appeal on wildlife, native plants, and alternatives. - The project is not a covered entity under cap-and-trade; CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(c)(3) allows only offsets 'not otherwise required', so suppliers' mandatory compliance cannot be double-counted as project mitigation. - Distinguishes Association of Irritated Residents (2017), where the project site itself (a refinery) was a covered entity; at oral argument Tejon did not ask the court to uphold that case and conceded a key emissions table was misleading. - Gives weight to the Natural Resources Agency's 2009 statement of reasons and a CARB comment letter saying cap-and-trade was not meant to mitigate land-use projects. - Unpublished part: the one-paragraph off-site wildfire discussion was inadequate; the Center could share in relief won by Climate Resolve, which settled; but the EIR's wildlife, vegetation, and alternatives analyses were adequate. ### California appeals court blocks massive housing project over climate risks - Courthouse News Service · news · published 2025-06-26 · stance: neutral - Courthouse News reports that a Division Seven panel led by Martinez upheld the rejection of Tejon Ranch's 12,000-acre Centennial development, holding that Los Angeles County misused California's cap-and-trade program to count away 96% of the project's greenhouse gas emissions. - Quotes Martinez's opinion: the county 'failed to proceed in a manner required by law when it applied the cap-and-trade program' to the project's emissions, rendering the EIR 'prejudicially misleading.' - The court held CEQA guidelines contain an 'additionality requirement' barring use of energy providers' cap-and-trade compliance to offset a land-use project. - The court upheld the trial court's rejection of the environmental groups' claims on wildlife, vegetation, and alternatives. - Joined by Justices Natalie Stone and Gail Feuer. ### Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating (B322799N, 2025-05-21; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7 · court opinion · published 2025-05-21 · stance: not_applicable - A second order modifying footnote 3 of Presiding Justice Martinez's April 21, 2025 opinion in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, with the unmodified opinion attached. The opinion holds that revocable, prospective written waivers of the meal period for five-to-six-hour shifts are enforceable absent evidence of unconscionability or coercion. The order adds that the two possibly applicable wage orders are identical on meal periods, so the court need not decide which applies. - Second modification replaces footnote 3 again, now stating both wage orders cover veterinary technicians and have identical meal-period terms; no change in judgment. - Holding and reasoning are the same as in the opinion attached to the first modification order: text silent on timing, history supports prospective waivers, Brinker and the 2003 DLSE letter do not control. - The court notes plaintiffs did not claim the waivers were unknowing, coerced, or irrevocable, and reserves those questions. ### Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (B322799M, 2025-05-20; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7 · court opinion · published 2025-05-20 · stance: not_applicable - An order modifying a footnote in Presiding Justice Martinez's April 21, 2025 opinion in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, with the unmodified opinion attached. The opinion, for a unanimous panel, holds that a revocable written waiver signed in advance can waive the meal period for shifts of five to six hours, absent evidence it was unconscionable or coercive. - The order corrects footnote 3, which had swapped which wage order covers which industry; no change in judgment. - Labor Code section 512 and Wage Orders 4 and 5 are silent on the timing and form of a waiver; because the text supports both readings, the court turns to legislative and administrative history. - IWC history shows written prospective waivers were adopted elsewhere as protections for both sides, not a bar on prospective waivers. - Brinker (2012) did not address when a meal period may be waived; a 2003 DLSE opinion letter on an agricultural wage order does not control. - The court says it 'would hesitate' to uphold a waiver that was coerced, unknowing, or not freely revocable; plaintiffs made no such claims. ### Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta (B315409M, 2025-03-27; opinion by Gonzalo C. Martinez) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7 · court opinion · published 2025-03-27 · stance: not_applicable - Presiding Justice Martinez's opinion for a unanimous panel, here with a March 27, 2025 order modifying it and denying rehearing. Two charities won trial-court rulings that parts of California's charitable-solicitation law were unconstitutional prior restraints, plus statewide injunctions against the Attorney General. The court vacates the injunctions because the charities never pleaded or proved a right to them, and affirms the trial court's reformation and severance of the cease-and-desist provision. - The Attorney General did not challenge the constitutional rulings, only the injunctions; the court holds permanent injunctions 'are not issued as a matter of course, even in cases implicating the First Amendment.' - The charities' complaints did not request injunctive relief; on remand the trial court decides whether to allow amendment and whether an injunction is proven. - No categorical bar on both reforming and severing a statute (Kopp); the charities did not show the Legislature would prefer invalidation. - Attorney fee awards to the charities vacated for reconsideration; the modification deletes the words ', and we reject it' from one sentence about injunctions reaching nonparties. ### Panel confirms gay CA appellate presiding justice Martinez - Bay Area Reporter · news · published 2024-05-14 · stance: neutral - Bay Area Reporter coverage of Martinez's unanimous confirmation as Division Seven's presiding justice. It reports his JNE rating of 'well qualified', anonymous jurists' praise mixed with concern about his limited appellate experience, and his own remarks on judging. - Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmed him 3-0 on May 14, 2024, less than a year after he joined the appellate bench. - Of 13 people the Attorney General's office contacted, none objected; two jurists said his short tenure and the division's case backlog could make the presiding role challenging at first. - Martinez, quoted: 'I will pause and think about whether what I am doing is the right thing under the circumstances and the law.' - Supporters, including Ana Matosantos and 15 bar associations, described him as 'measured, matter of fact, collaborative, and insightful.' ### Martinez's eviction ruling reaches high court ahead of retention vote - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County - Reform California · voter guide · published undated · stance: oppose - Reform California's Los Angeles County voter guide recommends DO NOT RETAIN for Martinez, as it does for 30 of the 33 Second District justices it lists. No reasons are given. - Martinez: DO NOT RETAIN. - Only Victoria Chavez, Frances Rothschild, and Kenneth Yegan get RETAIN in the Second District. - Also recommends DO NOT RETAIN for both Supreme Court justices. ### Presiding Justice Gonzalo C. Martinez (court biography) - California Courts of Appeal, Second District · other · published undated · stance: neutral - The court's biography says Martinez has been Presiding Justice of Division Seven since 2024, after a year as its associate justice; earlier he was Gov. Newsom's deputy judicial appointments secretary, a deputy solicitor general, and an appellate partner at Squire Patton Boggs. - Associate Justice, Division Seven, 2023-2024; confirmed Presiding Justice in 2024. - Worked in the Governor's Office as deputy judicial appointments secretary and in legal affairs. - As deputy solicitor general, represented the state in the U.S. and California Supreme Courts. - Certified appellate specialist; elected to the American Law Institute in 2025. ### Sepanossian v. National Ready Mix Co. (B319260) - Justia (Court of Appeal, Second District) · court opinion · published undated · stance: not_applicable - ### 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 Gonzalo C. Martinez, Presiding Justice, Division Seven, among the Second District justices on the Nov. 3, 2026 retention ballot. It gives names and divisions only. - Martinez is listed as Presiding Justice of Division Seven, with Associate Justice Natalie Stone. - No qualifications, ratings, or arguments appear on this page. - Reference: Court biography of Gonzalo C. Martinez ### Published opinions by Gonzalo C. Martinez, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - A ballotscope compilation of Presiding Justice Martinez's published opinions listed on courts.ca.gov from October 2024 to October 2026: 12 authored opinions and no separate opinions (no published dissents or concurrences). It covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished. - Authored: 12; separate opinions: 0. - The 12 entries include repeat versions of the same case: Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating appears three times (opinion plus two modifications) and Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta twice, so about nine distinct cases. - Mostly civil and public law: tenant ordinances (Apartment Assn. v. City of Los Angeles), public-sector labor (L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn.), CEQA (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Los Angeles), wage-and-hour (Bradsbery), a suit against the Attorney General (Catholic Medical Mission Bd. v. Bonta), and a case against a law firm (Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys). - Criminal and juvenile captions are few: P. v. Padron, In re Tuilaepa, In re T.R. ## 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.