# Justice Matthew A. Scherb *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 2025-11-17 to 2026-10-14. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 13 sources) Scherb joined Division Eight in November 2025 after a career as an appellate staff attorney, a Los Angeles city appellate lawyer and a Supreme Court chambers attorney. He had not been a judge before [Associate Justice Matthew A. Scherb; Commission Confirms Three Appointments to Courts of Appeal]. The census lists 3 authored published opinions and no separate opinions from October 2024 to October 2026 [Published opinions by Matthew A. Scherb, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. They are a criminal resentencing ruling for the prosecution (May 2026) [P. v. Moss (B343073, 2026-05-04; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb)], a $10.5 million judgment extended to a tenant's family partners (July 2026) [8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad (B340673, 2026-07-23; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb)], and a 2-1 holding that an employee waived the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act (October 2026), over Wiley's dissent [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)]. LAist lists a State Bar rating of "Well qualified" [2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot]. Reform California says do not retain [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County]. A blog says retain [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices]. DSA-LA says voters could vote no because of his corporate-law background [DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide]. ### Record highlights - Census, Oct 2024 to Oct 2026: 3 authored published opinions, 0 separate opinions. Published opinions only. [Published opinions by Matthew A. Scherb, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Oct 5, 2026, Chin v. DoorDash: wrote the 2-1 majority holding an employee waived the EFAA by strategically withholding a known harassment claim; arbitration compelled. [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)] - Jul 23, 2026, 8451 Melrose Property v. Akhtarzad: affirmed adding an undisclosed family partnership's members and company to a commercial-lease judgment. [8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad (B340673, 2026-07-23; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb)] - May 4, 2026, People v. Moss: held an upper term may be reimposed at section 1172.75 resentencing without new jury findings, joining most appellate courts against Gonzalez; the Supreme Court is reviewing the issue. [P. v. Moss (B343073, 2026-05-04; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb); People v. Moss, B343073] - Confirmed unanimously Nov 17, 2025. [Commission Confirms Three Appointments to Courts of Appeal] ### Stated positions - Statutory rights such as the EFAA are presumptively waivable, and withholding known objections is "unbecoming gamesmanship" (Oct 2026). [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)] - A resentencing proviso creates two rules; the contrary reading is "counter textual" (May 2026). [P. v. Moss (B343073, 2026-05-04; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb)] ### Where sources disagree - DSA-LA calls him a former corporate-law partner; the court biography and the Judicial Council describe litigation practice at Winston & Strawn, and the Council calls him an associate. [DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide; Associate Justice Matthew A. Scherb; Commission Confirms Three Appointments to Courts of Appeal] - LAist dates his "Well qualified" rating to 2024, before his 2025 nomination as other sources give it. [2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot; Associate Justice Matthew A. Scherb] ### Gaps - Only three published opinions and no separate opinions; his record is short. - No interviews, questionnaire answers or speeches. - Unpublished opinions, most of his work, are not covered; a blog's claim about one is AI-sourced and unverified. ### Arguments for / praise - Found no scandals or discipline; retain. — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] - Varied expertise on the court is valuable. — *DSA-LA* [DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide] ### Arguments against / criticism - Do not retain (no reason given). — *Reform California* [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County] - Voters could vote no because he was a corporate-law partner. — *DSA-LA* [DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Systematic sample per the fixed rule: separate opinions first (he has none), then his newest authored opinions, up to 5 texts. Only 3 exist, so the sample is his complete published output for Oct 2024 to Oct 2026 per the census. S1 Chin v. DoorDash (employment arbitration, majority over a Wiley dissent), S2 8451 Melrose Property v. Akhtarzad (adding judgment debtors), S3 People v. Moss (criminal resentencing), May to October 2026. S1's text includes Wiley's dissent; only the majority is treated as Scherb's words. S2 was read selectively (framework, due-process and individual-partner sections). Prepared written opinions only; no speeches, interviews or questionnaires. Text- and precedent-driven, with close attention to structure. In S3 he reads a statutory proviso as setting two rules and joins most appellate courts against a contrary decision. He also accepts that the Legislature may limit how far ameliorative relief reaches. In S1 he treats a federal statutory right as waivable under ordinary default rules unless Congress says otherwise. He requires clear and convincing evidence of waiver, which he finds in the plaintiff's own statements. In S2 he works through Supreme Court due-process precedent on binding absent partners and holds the facts sufficient, declining to announce broader rules. He tends to decide no more than needed: S1 skips the pleading issue and S3 assumes the claim was not forfeited. Results: for the employer (S1), the judgment creditor (S2) and the prosecution (S3). Three opinions are too few to describe a settled philosophy. Articulation: **adequate**. Prepared texts only. S1 and S2 are thorough and well organized. They state the standard of review and quantum of proof, survey authority on both sides (S1 distinguishes Ding and Quilala; S2 works through Dillard, Minton and Sawyer), and answer the losing side's arguments. Clear examples are the opening one-sentence statement of the holding in S1 and the explicit road map in S2. S3 is short and leans on other courts' reasoning instead of developing its own. S2 is dense and citation-heavy, and harder for a lay reader. With three samples, adequate is the supportable rating, though S1 and S2 approach strong. Consistency: **insufficient_evidence**. Three majority opinions over five months show a consistent method: careful text and precedent, and narrow holdings. That is too few, and too short a span, to judge consistency over time. No shifts are observable. - Waiver of statutory rights in litigation: Statutory rights, including the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act, are presumptively waivable. Strategically withholding a known claim while opposing arbitration waives the Act's protection. - "The EFAA does not automatically void arbitration agreements." [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-10-05) - "It constitutes waiver by clear and convincing evidence." [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-10-05) - "It would be problematic if litigants, without restrictions, could strategically delay invocation of the EFAA by strategically delaying their presentation of harassment claims such as those Chin has injected here." [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-10-05) - Litigation gamesmanship: Parties must raise known objections to arbitration in court before arbitration proceeds. - "Sandbagging the court and litigation opponents by withholding known objections causes disorder and waste, and it represents unbecoming gamesmanship." [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-10-05) - Adding judgment debtors under section 187: Undisclosed partners can be added to a judgment when the partnership was the real defendant and the partners, on the totality of circumstances, controlled the litigation. Due process limits this, and the opinion addresses those limits at length. - "In sum, section 187 liability follows from a nonparty’s sufficient litigation control and sufficient relationship to a judgment debtor." [8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad (B340673, 2026-07-23; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb)] (2026-07-23) - "The expectation of partners in partnership is liability." [8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad (B340673, 2026-07-23; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb)] (2026-07-23) - Upper terms at section 1172.75 resentencing: An upper term properly imposed originally may be reimposed without new jury findings. The contrary reading in Gonzalez is rejected. - "thus seems counter textual" [P. v. Moss (B343073, 2026-05-04; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb)] (2026-05-04) - "Meanwhile, we follow the many appellate courts disagreeing with Gonzalez for the reasons stated by those courts." [P. v. Moss (B343073, 2026-05-04; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb)] (2026-05-04) Limitations: Only three published opinions, all majorities, from May to October 2026. Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; most appeals are decided in unpublished opinions, which this sample does not cover. There are no separate opinions, so his views where he disagrees with colleagues are unknown. No unscripted speech; joined opinions are not covered. S2 was read selectively. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-14** — Published: DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide (Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles) - **2026-10-07** — Published: November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-10-05** — Published: Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-10-05** — Chin v. DoorDash decided 2-1; Scherb writes for the majority (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-10-05** — Most recent listed authored opinion (Chin v. DoorDash) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-01** — Published: 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot (LAist) - **2026-10-01** — LAist published guide (updated 2026-10-22) (LAist) - **2026-08-24** — Published: List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 (California Secretary of State) - **2026-08-24** — Secretary of State issued list of judicial candidates and ballot questions (California Secretary of State) - **2026-07-23** — Published: 8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad (B340673, 2026-07-23; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-07-23** — Opinion filed affirming amended judgment adding judgment debtors (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-05-04** — Published: P. v. Moss (B343073, 2026-05-04; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-05-04** — Opinion filed affirming resentencing in People v. Moss (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-05-04** — Published: People v. Moss, B343073 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-05-04** — Opinion filed affirming Moss's 15-year resentence (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-05-04** — Earliest listed authored opinion (People v. Moss) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-11-17** — Published: Commission Confirms Three Appointments to Courts of Appeal (California Courts Newsroom) - **2025-11-17** — Confirmed to Second District, Division Eight (California Courts Newsroom) - **2025-11-17** — Confirmed by Commission on Judicial Appointments (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) - **2025-08-07** — Nominated by Gov. Newsom (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) ## Sources ### DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide - Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles · endorsement · published 2026-10-14 · stance: support - DSA-LA's guide says retention votes are a backstop and voters would be justified voting yes, no, or blank on all justices; it groups Scherb with five justices described as former corporate-law partners and says voters "could vote no" for that reason, while noting the value of varied expertise. - Describes Scherb as a former corporate-law partner specializing in media/entertainment litigation, copyright and trademarks. - Gives no explicit yes/no recommendation for this group. ### November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices - cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) · voter guide · published 2026-10-07 · stance: support - A personal blog's ballot analysis, relying explicitly on "Google AI" answers, says it found no scandals or discipline involving Scherb and concludes "Retain (Yes)." - Notes he was appointed directly to the appellate court without prior trial-court service. - Says he was unanimously confirmed in November 2025 to fill Justice Elizabeth Grimes's vacancy. ### Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2026-10-05 · stance: not_applicable - Scherb's majority holds an employee waived the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act's protection: he withheld a known sexual-harassment claim "for strategic purposes" while opposing arbitration, then added it only after arbitration was compelled. Wiley dissents, calling it a blunder rather than waiver. - Treats EFAA rights as waivable under ordinary waiver rules, applying a clear-and-convincing standard and de novo review on undisputed facts. - Relies on the plaintiff's own statements that the omission was strategic and the amendment was made "specifically to avoid arbitration." - Distinguishes the Ninth Circuit's Ding cases (plaintiff learned of claim later) and Quilala (no waiver analysis). - Rejects a claimed "right to forum shop" to the extent it means forum-hopping "at whim." - Reverses denial of arbitration and the consolidation order. ### 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot - LAist · voter guide · published 2026-10-01 · stance: neutral - LAist's retention explainer for LA and Orange County appellate justices lists Scherb as a Newsom-appointed Division Eight associate justice with a State Bar evaluation rating of "Well qualified" (dated 2024 in the guide). - Lists State Bar (JNE Commission) rating: Well qualified (2024). - Explains retention elections are yes/no; no California appellate justice has lost one since the 1930s, per a state analysis LAist cites. ### List of Judicial Candidates with Headings and Ballot Questions, General Election November 3, 2026 - California Secretary of State · official analysis · published 2026-08-24 · stance: not_applicable - Official list of judicial retention contests: Matthew A. Scherb appears as Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, with the question "Shall Associate Justice MATTHEW A. SCHERB be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" - Retention (yes/no) contest; no opponent. - Listed with fellow Division Eight Justice John Wiley. ### 8451 Melrose Property, LLC v. Akhtarzad (B340673, 2026-07-23; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2026-07-23 · stance: not_applicable - Scherb's opinion for a unanimous panel affirms adding a tenant's family partners and their leasing company to a roughly $10.5 million commercial-lease judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 187, finding the undisclosed "one-for-all" family partnership was the real defendant and the partners sufficiently controlled the litigation. - Holds section 187 amendment may rest on an equitable analog of alter ego when the equities overwhelmingly favor it. - Works through due-process limits from Dillard v. McKnight (1949): partners are not automatically bound by a judgment against one partner. - Finds control from the totality: the partnership paid for the defense, the defense was vigorous, and every partner knew of the suit and impliedly ratified the tenant as representative. - Expressly declines to delineate "further rules" beyond this fact-bound finding. ### P. v. Moss (B343073, 2026-05-04; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2026-05-04 · stance: not_applicable - Scherb's opinion for a unanimous panel holds a court resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 may reimpose an upper term originally imposed in compliance with Apprendi without new jury findings on aggravating factors, siding with most appellate courts against People v. Gonzalez (2024). - Reads the section 1172.75(d)(4) proviso "[u]nless the court originally imposed the upper term" as creating two rules, and calls Gonzalez's reading "counter textual." - Says the Legislature may limit the reach of ameliorative resentencing without raising new Apprendi concerns. - Notes the Supreme Court is reviewing the question in People v. Eaton (S289903). - Assumes without deciding the claim was not forfeited. ### People v. Moss, B343073 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2026-05-04 · stance: not_applicable - Scherb's published opinion holding that a court resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 may reimpose an originally imposed upper term without new jury findings on aggravating factors. - Sides with Brannon-Thompson, Mathis and Dozier against People v. Gonzalez (2024) on reading section 1172.75(d)(4). - Reasons from the text: the "unless the court originally imposed the upper term" proviso creates two rules. - Notes the Supreme Court is considering the issue in People v. Eaton; the opinion itself was later marked review granted. ### Commission Confirms Three Appointments to Courts of Appeal - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2025-11-17 · stance: neutral - Judicial Council release announcing the Commission on Judicial Appointments' unanimous confirmation of Scherb to Division Eight, filling Justice Elizabeth Grimes's vacancy. - Confirmed unanimously by Chief Justice Guerrero, AG Bonta and Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert. - Bio: Supreme Court chambers attorney since 2021; deputy LA city attorney 2017-2021; appellate court attorney 2011-2017; Winston & Strawn associate 2005-2011. ### Commission confirms 3 new justices to California Courts of Appeal - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ### Pay Up Jr v. Rechnitz (CA2/8, 2/19/26) - Counsel Stack · court opinion · published undated · stance: not_applicable - ### Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County - Reform California · voter guide · published undated · stance: oppose - Reform California's LA County slate lists Matthew Scherb (Associate Justice) as "DO NOT RETAIN." - Recommends no on nearly every Second District justice; RETAIN only for Victoria Chavez, Frances Rothschild and Kenneth Yegan. ### B343515 (opinion page) - Judicial Council of California · other · 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 - Secretary of State voter-guide page listing Second District justices on the ballot by division; Matthew A. Scherb is listed under Division 8 with a link to the court's biography. - Division 8 justices on the ballot: John Wiley, Matthew A. Scherb, Victor G. Viramontes. ### B339116 (opinion page) - Judicial Council of California · other · published undated · stance: not_applicable - ### Commission to consider appointment of Scherb to Court of Appeal - California Courts Newsroom · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ### People v. Ramirez (CA2/8, 2026) - Counsel Stack · court opinion · published undated · stance: not_applicable - ### Associate Justice Matthew A. Scherb - California Courts of Appeal, Second District · other · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Court biography: Scherb joined Division Eight in 2025 after a career as an appellate staff lawyer and government appellate litigator; he had not been a judge. - Nominated Aug. 7, 2025; confirmed Nov. 17, 2025. - Clerk to U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth (D.D.C.); Winston & Strawn litigation (copyright/trademark) 2005-2011. - Senior/lead appellate court attorney for Justice Kathleen Banke (1st District) 2011-2017; LA City Attorney civil appeals and writs 2017-2021. - Chambers attorney for Supreme Court Justice Martin Jenkins 2021-2025; volunteered at Public Counsel's appellate self-help clinic. ### Published opinions by Matthew A. Scherb, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Court listing of Scherb's published Division Eight opinions, October 2024 to October 2026: 3 authored opinions and no separate opinions. Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished. - Authored: Chin v. DoorDash (2026-10-05, employment arbitration), 8451 Melrose Property v. Akhtarzad (2026-07-23, judgment enforcement), People v. Moss (2026-05-04, criminal resentencing). - No published dissents or concurrences in the period. - Earliest listed opinion is May 2026. ## 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.