# Justice Anne Richardson *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 2026-10-08. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 15 sources) Anne Richardson, a former private litigator (24 years), Public Counsel directing attorney and Superior Court judge, joined Division Two in November 2024 [Associate Justice Anne Richardson biography; Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles]. The State Bar's evaluation commission rated her "exceptionally well qualified" [Associate Justice Anne Richardson biography; 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot]. From October 2024 to October 2026 she wrote 5 published majority opinions and 2 concurrences, no dissents [Published opinions by Anne Richardson, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. Both concurrences (2026) narrow the court's reach: one declines to decide an equal protection question the case did not require, the other rejects a colleague's equity-based objection to applying a lighter sentencing law retroactively [People v. Bustillos (B337951, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 6/11/26, published; Richardson concurrence); P. v. Cortez (B348276, 2026-09-24; concurring opinion by Anne Richardson)]. Her majority opinions treat court openness as the default, rejecting unapproved pseudonyms in Roe v. Smith (Nov. 2025) and Luna v. Top Dawg (Oct. 2026) [Roe v. Smith (B344378, 2025-11-21; opinion by Anne Richardson); Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment (B347645, 2026-10-08; opinion by Anne Richardson)], and uphold California's concealed-dagger ban under the Second Amendment (July 2026) [P. v. Miranda (B346902, 2026-07-13; opinion by Anne Richardson)]. ### Record highlights - Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 5 authored published opinions and 2 concurrences, 0 dissents (published opinions only). [Published opinions by Anne Richardson, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Oct. 2026, Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment: press release naming plaintiffs who used unapproved pseudonyms is protected; doxing claim stricken. [Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment (B347645, 2026-10-08; opinion by Anne Richardson)] - Sept. 2026, People v. Cortez (concurrence): would not reach the equal protection split on juvenile resentencing. [P. v. Cortez (B348276, 2026-09-24; concurring opinion by Anne Richardson)] - July 2026, People v. Miranda: ban on concealed dirks and daggers upheld against a facial Second Amendment challenge. [P. v. Miranda (B346902, 2026-07-13; opinion by Anne Richardson)] - June 2026, People v. Bustillos (concurrence): Estrada retroactivity applies to all nonfinal cases; declined the majority's equity concerns. [People v. Bustillos (B337951, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 6/11/26, published; Richardson concurrence)] - Nov. 2025, Roe v. Smith: reversed pseudonymity for adult defamation plaintiffs; reputational fear is not an overriding interest. [Roe v. Smith (B344378, 2025-11-21; opinion by Anne Richardson); Roe v. Smith (B344378, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed Nov. 2025, published); Takeaways for California lawyers from the Second District's new pseudonymity case] - July 2025, Conservatorship of Anne S.: a neighbor lacked standing to petition; sanctions affirmed. [Conservatorship of Anne S. (B333052, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 7/10/25, published); Conservatorship of Anne S. (case summary)] ### 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] ### Gaps - No criticism of her record from any source. - No oral arguments or interviews. - Unpublished opinions, most of her output, are not covered. - Practitioner notes on Roe and Anne S. come from the winning side's counsel or summarize only; none evaluates her. ### Arguments for / praise - Rated "exceptionally well qualified" before appointment. — *Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation* [Associate Justice Anne Richardson biography; 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot] ## 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. Richardson's sample is her 2 published concurrences, People v. Cortez (S2, juvenile resentencing) and People v. Bustillos (S4, sentencing retroactivity), plus her 3 most recent authored majority opinions: Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment (S1, anti-SLAPP and doxing), People v. Miranda (S3, Second Amendment) and Roe v. Smith (S5, pseudonymous litigation), November 2025 to October 2026 (court_opinion). The stored S2 and S4 texts include majority opinions by other justices; only her concurrences are used as her words. No dissents, oral arguments or unscripted remarks. A restrained, rule-applying judge. She applies governing presumptions and tests as written (Estrada in S4, Bruen and Rahimi in S3, the overriding-interest test in S1 and S5) and leaves policy changes to the Legislature (S4). Both concurrences narrow the court's reach: in S2 she would not decide a constitutional question the case does not require, and in S4 she declines to join a colleague's equity-based criticism of a statute's effect. On court access she treats public openness as the default and requires a court order and evidence before parties may litigate anonymously (S1, S5). Outcomes cut across party lines: the government wins in S2 and S3, a criminal defendant in S4, and defendants in S1; S5 favors a press-access group over plaintiffs. The sample does not support a political label. Articulation: **strong**. Prepared texts only. Majority opinions state the question and answer at once (S3: "We conclude it may.") and close with rules for trial courts (S5). Concurrences are short and exact, naming the parts joined and not joined (S2, S4). She acknowledges the losing side's interests before ruling against them (S1: "We are, of course, sensitive to the nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations"). Prose is plain and economical. Consistency: **adequate**. Across about 11 months the commitments line up: apply the governing rule as written, leave policy to the Legislature, and avoid unnecessary rulings. S1 applies the access rule from her own S5. No position changes appear. Five texts over less than a year are a small base for judging consistency over time. - Pseudonymous litigation and public access: Anonymity is a rare exception that requires a court order and evidence; generalized reputational fear is not enough, especially for defamation plaintiffs. - "While defamation plaintiffs are not categorically foreclosed from proceeding pseudonymously, they are generally ill suited to do so; courts should require a robust evidentiary showing in such a case." [Roe v. Smith (B344378, 2025-11-21; opinion by Anne Richardson)] (2025-11-21) - "Absent filing such a motion or a statutory basis, they simply had no “right” to remain anonymous while suing in court." [Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment (B347645, 2026-10-08; opinion by Anne Richardson)] (2026-10-08) - Retroactivity of lighter sentencing laws: Under Estrada, ameliorative laws apply to every nonfinal case, whatever the reason it is nonfinal; the Legislature may set a different rule. - "But the Estrada presumption applies ameliorative legislation to all nonfinal cases, regardless of why they are not final." [People v. Bustillos (B337951, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 6/11/26, published; Richardson concurrence)] (2026-06-11) - "Our Legislature remains free, of course, to specify a different rule of retroactivity for legislation it passes." [People v. Bustillos (B337951, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 6/11/26, published; Richardson concurrence)] (2026-06-11) - Second Amendment and concealed knives: California's ban on concealed dirks and daggers fits the historical tradition of concealed-carry regulation, without requiring every modern law to match history so closely. - "By so holding, we do not mean to suggest the Constitution requires every contemporary statute to mirror historical arms regulations as closely as does section 21310." [P. v. Miranda (B346902, 2026-07-13; opinion by Anne Richardson)] (2026-07-13) - Juvenile resentencing and equal protection: A sentence that is not functionally life without parole defeats the claim, so the broader equal protection question should not be reached. - "I therefore would not reach the equal protection issue addressed in the Discussion, part II.C." [P. v. Cortez (B348276, 2026-09-24; concurring opinion by Anne Richardson)] (2026-09-24) 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. The two concurrences are short. The sample runs from November 2025 to October 2026 only. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-08** — Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-08** — Published: Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment (B347645, 2026-10-08; opinion by Anne Richardson) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2026-10-08** — Opinion filed reversing (Richardson, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2026-10-01** — Published: 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot (LAist) - **2026-09-24** — Concurrence in People v. Cortez (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-09-24** — Published: P. v. Cortez (B348276, 2026-09-24; concurring opinion by Anne Richardson) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2026-09-24** — Opinion filed with Richardson concurrence (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2026-08-24** — Published: List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 (California Secretary of State) - **2026-07-13** — People v. Miranda filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-07-13** — Published: P. v. Miranda (B346902, 2026-07-13; opinion by Anne Richardson) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2026-07-13** — Opinion filed affirming (Richardson, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2026-06-11** — Concurrence in People v. Bustillos (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-06-11** — Published: People v. Bustillos (B337951, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 6/11/26, published; Richardson concurrence) (California Courts) - **2026-06-11** — Opinion filed; Richardson concurred separately (California Courts) - **2025-11-21** — Roe v. Smith filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-11-21** — Published: Roe v. Smith (B344378, 2025-11-21; opinion by Anne Richardson) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2025-11-21** — Opinion filed reversing (Richardson, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2025-11-21** — Published: Roe v. Smith (B344378, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed Nov. 2025, published) (California Court of Appeal (copy hosted by Reason)) - **2025-11-21** — Opinion filed reversing pseudonymity order (California Court of Appeal (copy hosted by Reason)) - **2025-11-21** — Published: Takeaways for California lawyers from the Second District's new pseudonymity case (Reason (The Volokh Conspiracy)) - **2025-11-21** — Second District decided Roe v. Smith (Reason (The Volokh Conspiracy)) - **2025-07-17** — Published: Conservatorship of Anne S. (case summary) (California Lawyers Association, Trusts and Estates Section) - **2025-07-11** — Trial court denied the petition (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2025-07-10** — Second District, Division Two filed Conservatorship of Anne S. (California Lawyers Association, Trusts and Estates Section) - **2025-07-10** — Conservatorship of Anne S. filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-07-10** — Published: Conservatorship of Anne S. (B333052, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 7/10/25, published) (California Courts) - **2025-07-10** — Opinion filed affirming dismissal and sanctions (California Courts) - **2025-02-01** — TDE press release named the plaintiffs (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2025-01-31** — Hardy v. Forest River filed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2024-12-06** — Suit filed under pseudonyms (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2024-11-25** — Published: Commission Confirms Appointments to Appellate Court in Los Angeles (California Courts Newsroom) - **2024-11-25** — Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmed Anne Richardson to the Second District Court of Appeal (California Courts Newsroom) - **2024-11** — Joined the Court of Appeal (California Courts (Second District Court of Appeal)) - **2024-04-03** — Arrest after vehicle break-in (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2024-03** — Complaint filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2) - **2018-10** — Appointed to LA Superior Court (California Courts (Second District Court of Appeal)) ## Sources ### Luna v. Top Dawg Entertainment (B347645, 2026-10-08; opinion by Anne Richardson) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2 · court opinion · published 2026-10-08 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Richardson, J. (Chavez, Acting P.J., Goorvitch, J.). Reversed denial of an anti-SLAPP motion: Top Dawg Entertainment's press release naming two women who had sued under unauthorized pseudonyms was protected speech, and the fair report privilege defeats their doxing claim because they never asked the court for leave to proceed anonymously. - Restates that plaintiffs have no right to anonymity absent a statute or a court order under the overriding-interest test (citing her own Roe v. Smith). - Press release about a lawsuit is protected activity under section 425.16(e)(2) and (e)(4); courts should not hunt for a claim's 'gravamen' at step one. - Fair report privilege covers accurate reports about a proceeding, even of facts not yet in the record; the 'shakedown' language is not what was sued on. - Rejects the trial court's sua sponte reliance on Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6, which allows disclosing 'identity of the persons involved.' ### 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 Anne Richardson as an Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and rated "Exceptionally well qualified" by the State Bar (2024). - State Bar evaluation rating for Anne Richardson: Exceptionally well qualified (2024). - 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 Anne Richardson - Reference: Appellate retention elections (California Courts) ### P. v. Cortez (B348276, 2026-09-24; concurring opinion by Anne Richardson) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2 · court opinion · published 2026-09-24 · stance: not_applicable - Majority by Chavez, Acting P.J., affirming denial of a juvenile offender's resentencing petition and rejecting the Heard line on equal protection. Richardson concurred separately: the 46-years-to-life sentence is not functional life without parole, so the equal protection question need not and should not be reached. - Richardson joins parts II.A and II.B (sentence too short; section 3051 parole eligibility) but not part II.C. - Cites the rule that a challenger who cannot show a law unconstitutional as applied to him loses. - Majority: Heard misallocated the rational-basis burden; offers possible rational bases for limiting section 1170(d)(1) to explicit LWOP. - Notes the question is pending in the Supreme Court (Munoz and others). ### 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 ANNE RICHARDSON be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" under the Second District, Division Two. This confirms the justice is on the ballot. - Anne Richardson appears as a yes/no retention question for Associate Justice, Second District, Division Two. - Second District voters: Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura counties. ### P. v. Miranda (B346902, 2026-07-13; opinion by Anne Richardson) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2 · court opinion · published 2026-07-13 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Richardson, J. (Chavez, Acting P.J., Goorvitch, J.). Upheld California's ban on carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Penal Code 21310) against a facial Second Amendment challenge under Bruen and Rahimi, and held a vindictive-sentencing claim forfeited for lack of objection. - Assumes the text covers carrying a concealed 14-inch knife, then finds the ban 'robustly supported' by 19th-century concealed-carry laws. - No 'historical twin' needed; general concealed-weapon laws count, not just knife laws. - Disclaims any requirement that modern laws mirror history as closely as this one. - Rejects reliance on a Massachusetts switchblade case and a reading of Heller as repudiating Aymette. ### People v. Bustillos (B337951, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 6/11/26, published; Richardson concurrence) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2026-06-11 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Gilbert, J. (retired, sitting by assignment), joined by Lui, P.J., reversing an agreed upper-term sentence under People v. Mitchell and Senate Bill 567. In an "Additional Thoughts" section the majority objected that a defendant who absconded profits from his own wrong. Richardson wrote a short concurrence joining the result but not those concerns: the Estrada retroactivity presumption applies to all nonfinal cases "regardless of why they are not final," and changing that is for the Legislature. - Richardson concurrence: SB 567 is ameliorative and the case was not final, so Estrada applies. - Notes the Estrada majority rejected the dissent's concern that defendants would seek delay. - Points out the Legislature can specify a different retroactivity rule. - Majority (Gilbert): the result violates the maxim that no one may take advantage of his own wrong, and the Legislature may wish to correct it. ### Roe v. Smith (B344378, 2025-11-21; opinion by Anne Richardson) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2 · court opinion · published 2025-11-21 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Richardson, J. (Lui, P.J., Chavez, J.). Reversed an order letting adult defamation plaintiffs, accused of high-school sexual misconduct, proceed under pseudonyms: under the overriding-interest test, conclusory fear that employers will learn of the case is ordinary reputational harm that does not outweigh public access. - Pseudonymity orders are appealable collateral orders; trial courts must apply the NBC Subsidiary / rule 2.550(d) test, with federal factors as persuasive. - Agrees the allegations are 'highly sensitive and private,' the more so because the parties were minors, but finds no evidence of serious harm. - Reputational harm 'would swallow the rule' in defamation cases; such plaintiffs are 'generally ill suited' to anonymity. - The public is 'a third stakeholder' even when all parties agree to pseudonyms; asks for real names under seal for recusal checks. ### Roe v. Smith (B344378, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed Nov. 2025, published) - California Court of Appeal (copy hosted by Reason) · court opinion · published 2025-11-21 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Richardson, J. (Lui, P.J., and Chavez, J., concurring). Reversed an order letting adult defamation plaintiffs, accused of high-school sexual misconduct, proceed under pseudonyms. Applying the overriding-interest test for sealing, it held fear that future employers would learn of the allegations is reputational harm that does not outweigh the public's right of access. - Holds orders allowing pseudonyms are appealable collateral orders and reviewed independently on a no-evidence record. - Adopts the NBC Subsidiary / rule 2.550(d) overriding-interest test and treats federal pseudonymity factors as persuasive. - Agrees the allegations are highly sensitive, especially because the parties were minors, but finds no evidence of serious harm. - Does not require evidence in every case, but says the motion here rested on conclusory allegations. - Takes no position on the defendants' own pseudonymity, which was not appealed. ### Takeaways for California lawyers from the Second District's new pseudonymity case - Reason (The Volokh Conspiracy) · third party analysis · published 2025-11-21 · stance: neutral - Eugene Volokh lists takeaways from Roe v. Smith, which he calls only the third binding California precedent expressly addressing pseudonymity. He quotes its holdings that defamation plaintiffs are generally ill suited to proceed under pseudonyms, that reputational or employment fears do not suffice, and that courts must make express findings. He discloses he briefed and argued the case for the winning First Amendment Coalition. - Quotes the court: litigating by pseudonym should be a "limited and rare exception." - Notes the court treated pre-DFEH cases that allowed pseudonyms without discussion as non-authority, and Title IX precedents as generally not relevant to suits between private individuals. - Notes holdings that a party seeking a pseudonym should give real names under seal for recusal checks, and that such orders are immediately appealable. - Reference: Roe v. Smith opinion (PDF) ### Conservatorship of Anne S. (case summary) - California Lawyers Association, Trusts and Estates Section · third party analysis · published 2025-07-17 · stance: neutral - A California Lawyers Association Trusts and Estates Section case note (by Hengameh Kishani) on Conservatorship of Anne S. (B333052, filed July 10, 2025): being a proposed conservatee's neighbor does not confer standing to petition, and the petition was frivolous enough to justify sanctions. It does not name the author justice. - Headnote: standing to petition for conservatorship is limited to people with a genuine connection to or legal interest in the conservatee. - Recounts the withdrawn joint petition, the family settlement and the $5,577 sanctions. - Reference: Opinion PDF (link in note; returned 404 when fetched) ### Conservatorship of Anne S. (B333052, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 7/10/25, published) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2025-07-10 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Richardson, J. (Lui, P.J., and Chavez, J., concurring). Affirmed dismissal of a conservatorship petition and $5,577 in sanctions: a neighbor who had chatted once with the proposed conservatee is neither an "interested person" nor a "friend" with standing under Probate Code section 1820, and maintaining the petition was legally frivolous. - Applies the Probate Code's statutory definition of "interested person" (sections 48, 1424) and case law tying it to financial interest. - Defines "friend" by ordinary meaning using dictionaries: a mutual relationship with some intimacy or closeness. - Declines the petitioner's "idiosyncratic" six-factor test and leaves his policy arguments to the Legislature. - Expressly reserves cases where "friend" might be ambiguous. - Upholds sanctions as within the trial court's discretion. ### Conservatorship of Anne S. (B333052, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 7/10/25, published) - California Courts · court opinion · published 2025-07-10 · stance: not_applicable - ### Conservatorship of Anne S. (B333052, 2d Dist., Div. 2, filed 7/10/25, published) - Justia · court opinion · published 2025-07-10 · stance: not_applicable - ### 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 Anne Richardson to the Second District Court of Appeal on Nov. 25, 2024, with short biographies of the three appointees (Hoffstadt, Kim, Richardson). - Richardson fills the vacancy created by Justice Brian Hoffstadt's elevation to presiding justice of Division Five; LA Superior Court judge since 2018; directing attorney at Public Counsel 2014-2018; partner (1998-2014) and associate (1993-1998) at Hadsell, Stormer, Richardson and Renick; J.D., Stanford. - Confirmed by unanimous vote of Chief Justice Guerrero, Attorney General Bonta and Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert. - Reference: Public documents from the confirmation hearing ### Published opinions by Anne Richardson, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Census of Richardson's published opinions for Division Two from October 2024 to October 2026: 5 authored majority opinions and 2 concurrences, no dissents. - Authored: Luna v. Top Dawg (anti-SLAPP), People v. Miranda (Second Amendment), Roe v. Smith (pseudonymity), Conservatorship of Anne S., Hardy v. Forest River. - Concurrences: People v. Cortez (2026) and People v. Bustillos (2026), both criminal sentencing cases. - Mix of civil and criminal; both separate opinions narrow or decline to join parts of the majority. ### 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 Anne Richardson as an Associate Justice of the Second District, Division Two, 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 Anne Richardson, Associate Justice, Division Two, Second District. - Second District sits in Los Angeles (Divisions 1-5, 7, 8) and Ventura (Division 6). - Reference: Court biography of Anne Richardson ### Associate Justice Anne Richardson biography - California Courts (Second District Court of Appeal) · other · published undated · stance: neutral - Official court biography. Richardson, on Division Two since November 2024, spent 24 years in private practice at Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick litigating in state and federal trial and appellate courts. She then directed complex consumer litigation at Public Counsel for four years and served six years on the LA Superior Court (family law, then civil), including as a pro tem justice in Division Three. - Rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the JNE Commission; unanimously confirmed. - Appointed to the Superior Court by Gov. Brown in October 2018. - Clerked for U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer. - B.A. Swarthmore (Philosophy); J.D. with Distinction, Stanford; Stanford Law Review editor. - Taught at Loyola and UC Irvine law schools; two California Lawyer Attorney of the Year awards; Executive Board, California Judges 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.