# Justice Natalie Stone *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 2025-12-18 to 2026-10-07. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 10 sources) Natalie Stone has sat on Division Seven since May 2024, after nine years as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in dependency and criminal matters and earlier work at Munger, Tolles & Olson and as an appellate court attorney [Associate Justice Natalie P. Stone]. From October 2024 to October 2026 she wrote 13 published opinions (12 distinct cases) and one published dissent [Published opinions by Natalie Stone, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. Her recent opinions split by issue rather than by party: she largely upheld Pasadena's voter-approved rent control, including a tenant-majority rent board, while striking two provisions as preempted (Dec 2025) [California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (B329883)]; corrected a defendant's custody credits (Mar 2026) [People v. Taft (B339775)]; revived a homeowner's bad-faith claim against State Farm (May 2026) [Nargizyan v. State Farm General Insurance Co. (B342340)]; and upheld a labor-board order requiring Los Angeles to make employees whole for pension losses (Aug 2026) [City of L.A. v. American Federation of State, County etc. (B336981, 2026-08-28; opinion by Natalie Stone)]. Her one dissent (May 2026) would have let a trial court deny mental health diversion on safety grounds [People v. Tourville (B338176) (Stone, J., dissenting)]. LAist reports a 'Well qualified' rating from 2023 [2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot]; blogger Daniel Faigin recommends retention [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices]. ### Record highlights - Oct 2024 to Oct 2026: 13 published authored opinions (12 distinct cases) and 1 published separate opinion, the Tourville dissent; mostly civil and public law, with two criminal captions. Published opinions only. [Published opinions by Natalie Stone, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Aug 2026, City of L.A. v. AFSCME: upheld the City Employee Relations Board's temporary make-whole remedy for the City's failure to bargain over ending pension reciprocity with DWP, and awarded the unions fees. [City of L.A. v. American Federation of State, County etc. (B336981, 2026-08-28; opinion by Natalie Stone)] - May 2026, Nargizyan v. State Farm: reversed summary judgment for the insurer; a jury could find the leak sudden and the investigation unreasonable. [Nargizyan v. State Farm General Insurance Co. (B342340)] - May 2026, People v. Tourville: dissented from reversing a trial court's denial of mental health diversion; would allow denial over safety risks short of a likely super strike. [People v. Tourville (B338176) (Stone, J., dissenting)] - Mar 2026, People v. Taft: held Penal Code § 1237.1 let the trial court correct a two-day custody-credit error during the appeal. [People v. Taft (B339775)] - Dec 2025, Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena: upheld Measure H as a charter amendment and its tenant-majority rent board, but held its relocation-aid and notice-before-eviction provisions preempted. [California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (B329883)] ### Stated positions - In her May 2026 dissent: other courts 'neglect the corresponding goal of protecting public safety' in the diversion statute, and probation with treatment should remain an option. [People v. Tourville (B338176) (Stone, J., dissenting)] - In Pasadena (Dec 2025): courts 'must resolve all doubts in favor of the initiative process.' [California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (B329883)] ### Gaps - No source argues against retention on the merits. - No published family or dependency opinions despite her dependency background on the trial bench. - Unpublished opinions, most of her output, are not collected. - No interviews or statements; Faigin's reference to interviews about dependency work is second-hand and AI-sourced. ### Arguments for / praise - Recommends retention, finding no ethics or misconduct issues (drawing on AI-generated summaries). — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] - Reports a 2023 State Bar evaluation rating of 'Well qualified.' — *LAist* [2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot] ### Arguments against / criticism - Says jurists from large corporate firms 'occasionally face ideological scrutiny' from consumer and labor groups, without citing any criticism of Stone, and still recommends retention. — *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 texts, December 2025 to August 2026, chosen by a fixed rule applied to every justice: all separate opinions from her Oct 2024 to Oct 2026 published listings (one: the Tourville dissent on mental health diversion [S3]), then her four most recent authored opinions: municipal labor remedies [S1], insurance bad faith [S2], sentencing credit [S4], and Pasadena's Measure H rent-control charter amendment [S5]. Long opinions (S1, S5) were read selectively. For S3 the text read is her dissent only, without the majority's words. No speeches, interviews, or questionnaires. Text first, then structure and history. She reads statutes and charters by their words, turns to committee analyses when the text leaves room [S3], and states each side's burden explicitly [S2]. She defers where the law assigns discretion: to a city labor board's reading of its own ordinance and its choice of remedy [S1], to voters' initiative power [S5], and to trial judges weighing safety in diversion decisions [S3]. She reverses on questions of law (an insurer's unsupported exclusion [S2]; a trial court that thought it lacked jurisdiction to fix a credit error [S4]) and enforces state preemption against local measures [S5]. Outcomes split: unions won against the City [S1], an insured homeowner against State Farm [S2], a defendant on credits [S4], tenants on the rent board while landlords won two preemption claims [S5]; her dissent would have upheld a trial court's denial of diversion [S3]. Articulation: **strong**. Prepared texts only. Opinions state the holding up front and answer each argument in turn [S1, S5]. Distinctions rest on specific facts and doctrine: separating vested pension rights from bargaining rights [S1]; contrasting Freedman, Brown, and Mojica on the evidence an insurer offered [S2]. The dissent engages the majority directly, concedes limits ('I acknowledge a court will have some public safety concerns in most criminal cases'), and grounds its reading in cited committee reports [S3]. Prose is plain and measured. Weakness: the long opinions (S1, S5) are dense with block quotation. Consistency: **adequate**. Method is consistent across the five samples (Dec 2025 to Aug 2026): text first, then purpose and history, burdens stated explicitly. Her deference to a labor board [S1] and to trial courts [S3] sits alongside reversals on questions of law [S2, S4]; this tracks different standards of review, not a change of view. Nine months is too short to judge consistency over time; no shifts found. - Remedies for public-employer bargaining violations: A city labor board may order temporary make-whole relief for a failure to bargain over the effects of a pension change, even though employees had no vested right to the benefit, and doing so does not breach separation of powers [S1]. - "The City improperly conflates the issues of whether Reciprocity is a vested right and whether the Coalition had a right to engage in effects bargaining with the City over the termination of Reciprocity." [City of L.A. v. American Federation of State, County etc. (B336981, 2026-08-28; opinion by Natalie Stone)] (2026-08-28) - "The make-whole remedy did not defeat or materially impair the inherent functions of the City, and thus did not violate the separation of powers doctrine." [City of L.A. v. American Federation of State, County etc. (B336981, 2026-08-28; opinion by Natalie Stone)] (2026-08-28) - Local ballot measures and rent regulation: Resolves doubts in favor of the initiative power and upholds tenant-majority rent board seats, but voids local provisions that conflict with state rental and eviction law [S5]. - "we must resolve all doubts in favor of the initiative process" [California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (B329883)] (2025-12-18) - "any property disqualification under Measure H is based not on ownership of real property, but rather on the property’s use as rental property" [California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (B329883)] (2025-12-18) - "this requirement presents an extra procedural barrier for landlords that contradicts the unlawful detainer statutes" [California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (B329883)] (2025-12-18) - Insurance claim denials: An insurer relying on an exclusion must produce evidence that it applies; a denial resting on selective facts can go to a jury [S2]. - "State Farm did not present any evidence about the estimated duration of the leak." [Nargizyan v. State Farm General Insurance Co. (B342340)] (2026-05-14) - "State Farm focuses only on those facts that support a one-to-one comparison with Freedman" [Nargizyan v. State Farm General Insurance Co. (B342340)] (2026-05-14) - Mental health diversion: Trial courts may deny diversion over public or victim safety concerns short of a likely 'super strike', and may order probation with treatment instead [S3]. - "Appellate courts that have found to the contrary too narrowly construe the Legislature’s stated purposes for the diversion statute" [People v. Tourville (B338176) (Stone, J., dissenting)] (2026-05-05) - "Faulting courts for granting probation after denying diversion could have the perverse effect of leading courts to send more defendants with mental health issues to prison instead of allowing them to be treated in the community." [People v. Tourville (B338176) (Stone, J., dissenting)] (2026-05-05) - Trial-court authority to fix sentencing errors: Penal Code section 1237.1 lets a trial court correct a custody-credit error while an appeal is pending [S4]. - "Section 1237.1 is such an authorizing statute." [People v. Taft (B339775)] (2026-03-20) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; her 13 published authored opinions in the period (per the census listing) are a fraction of her decisions, and the one dissent is her only published separate opinion. Majority opinions are joined by colleagues, and the S3 excerpt omits the majority's reasoning she answers. No family or dependency appeals, and nothing from before December 2025 or outside her writing. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-07** — Published: November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-10-01** — Published: 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot (LAist) - **2026-08-28** — City of L.A. v. AFSCME (B336981) listed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-08-28** — Published: City of L.A. v. American Federation of State, County etc. (B336981, 2026-08-28; opinion by Natalie Stone) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2026-08-28** — Opinion modified and certified for publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **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 lists Stone for retention on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot (California Secretary of State) - **2026-07-30** — Court of Appeal affirmed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7) - **2026-05-14** — Published: Nargizyan v. State Farm General Insurance Co. (B342340) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2026-05-14** — Opinion modified and certified for publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2026-05-05** — Dissent in P. v. Tourville (B338176) listed (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-05-05** — Published: People v. Tourville (B338176) (Stone, J., dissenting) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2026-05-05** — Opinion and Stone dissent filed in People v. Tourville (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2026-04-15** — Opinion filed in Nargizyan v. State Farm (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2026-03-20** — Published: People v. Taft (B339775) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2026-03-20** — Opinion filed in People v. Taft (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2025-12-18** — Published: California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (B329883) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2025-12-18** — Opinion filed in California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven) - **2024-11-13** — Earliest listed opinion, Godoy v. Linzner (B330725) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2024-05** — Confirmed to the Court of Appeal, Division Seven (California Courts of Appeal) - **2015-07** — Appointed to Los Angeles Superior Court (California Courts of Appeal) - **2013-12-10** — City Council adopted the ordinance suspending Reciprocity, effective 2014-01-01 (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 - A personal voter-guide blog recommends retaining Stone, finding no ethics or misconduct issues; its discussion relies on "Google AI" summaries rather than primary records. - Recommendation: Retain (Yes). - Notes nearly a decade on the LA Superior Court, including a juvenile dependency calendar at Edelman Children's Court. - Notes ten years at Munger, Tolles & Olson and law-school legal-aid work with El Centro Legal. ### 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot - LAist · voter guide · published 2026-10-01 · stance: neutral - LAist's explainer on Court of Appeal retention races lists Stone with her appointing governor and State Bar evaluation rating; it offers no assessment of her record. - Lists Stone as an associate justice appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. - Reports a 2023 State Bar evaluation (JNE) rating of "Well qualified." - Explains that retention votes are yes/no and that no California appellate justice has lost a retention election since the 1930s, per a state analysis. - Reference: Court biography of Natalie Stone ### City of L.A. v. American Federation of State, County etc. (B336981, 2026-08-28; opinion by Natalie Stone) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7 · court opinion · published 2026-08-28 · stance: not_applicable - Justice Stone's opinion for a unanimous Division Seven panel upholding a labor-board order that Los Angeles make city employees whole for pension losses after it ended pension 'Reciprocity' with the Department of Water and Power without bargaining over the effects. It holds the City's Employee Relations Board may order make-whole relief, the remedy was within its discretion, it did not violate separation of powers, and the unions are owed attorney fees. - The City conceded it had to bargain over the effects of ending Reciprocity; it challenged only the remedy. - The court defers to the board's reading of its own ordinance unless 'clearly erroneous' and reviews its remedy for abuse of discretion. - The panel's 2025 AFSCME I ruling (no vested right to Reciprocity) does not bar relief: a right to bargain over effects is distinct from a vested pension right, and the remedy was temporary, lasting until agreement or impasse. - No separation-of-powers violation because the order does not invalidate the ordinance or impair the City Council's functions; fees affirmed under Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, plus fees on appeal. ### 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 official list of judicial contests for November 3, 2026 includes a retention question for Associate Justice Natalie Stone, Second District, Division Seven. - Ballot question: "Shall Associate Justice NATALIE STONE be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" - Listed under Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura). ### Nargizyan v. State Farm General Insurance Co. (B342340) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven · court opinion · published 2026-05-14 · stance: not_applicable - Stone's opinion reverses summary judgment for State Farm in a homeowner's water-leak claim, holding a jury could find the leak was sudden rather than "continuous or repeated" and that State Farm's investigation was unreasonable. - Insurer bears the burden of proving an exclusion applies; exclusions are "interpreted narrowly." - State Farm offered no evidence of how long the leak lasted; its engineer could not estimate when it started. - State Farm retained its engineering firm only after its own adjuster had concluded the loss looked covered, which a jury "could reasonably question." - Triable issues remain on bad faith and on punitive damages, including whether a claims team manager was a "managing agent." - The opinion distinguishes Freedman, Brown, and Mojica, where undisputed evidence showed long-running leaks. ### People v. Tourville (B338176) (Stone, J., dissenting) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven · court opinion · published 2026-05-05 · stance: not_applicable - Stone dissents from a ruling that a trial court abused its discretion by denying mental health diversion to a veteran charged with domestic violence; she argues courts may weigh public and victim safety beyond the statute's "super strike" bar. - The majority (Feuer, J.) held safety-based denial was improper once the court found no unreasonable risk of a super strike, and reversed. - Stone relies on the statute's text ("may, in its discretion") and on 2022 Senate and Assembly committee analyses to argue the Legislature preserved broad discretion. - She says other courts focus on "increased diversion" and "neglect the corresponding goal of 'protecting public safety.'" - She argues probation with the same treatment was a legitimate option, warning that faulting it "could lead to more defendants with mental illness in prison." - She draws on Los Angeles trial-court practice to say diversion progress reports give less oversight than probation. ### People v. Taft (B339775) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven · court opinion · published 2026-03-20 · stance: not_applicable - Stone's short opinion corrects a defendant's custody credit by two days, holding the trial court wrongly believed it lacked jurisdiction and clarifying the division's own earlier Singleton decision. - Credits for noncontinuous custody must be aggregated before computing conduct credit, giving 400 days, not 398. - Penal Code section 1237.1 gives trial courts jurisdiction to fix credit errors while an appeal is pending. - The court explains that Singleton (2025), which barred correcting long-final sentences without statutory authority, did not reach this situation. - A footnote flags as "ambiguous" whether section 1237.1 jurisdiction survives after an appeal ends, without deciding it. ### California Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (B329883) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven · court opinion · published 2025-12-18 · stance: not_applicable - Stone's opinion for a unanimous panel largely upholds Pasadena's voter-approved rent-control charter amendment (Measure H) but strikes two provisions as preempted by state law. - Measure H was a permissible charter amendment, not a revision barred to the initiative process; the court says it "must resolve all doubts in favor of the initiative process." - Reserving 7 of 11 rental-board seats for tenants does not violate the state ban on property qualifications for office, which the court reads as barring conditions on real-property ownership, an issue of first impression. - The tenant-majority board survives a facial federal equal protection challenge under rational-basis review. - The requirement that landlords pay relocation aid to tenants displaced by lawful rent increases is preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Act. - An extra notice-and-cure step before evictions for nonpayment is preempted by the Unlawful Detainer Act timeline. ### Published opinions by Natalie Stone, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - A ballotscope compilation of Justice Stone's published opinions listed on courts.ca.gov from October 2024 to October 2026: 13 authored opinions and 1 separate opinion (a dissent in People v. Tourville, May 2026). It covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished. - Authored: 13; separate opinions: 1 (dissent, P. v. Tourville, 2026-05-05). - Mostly civil and public law: municipal labor and pensions (two AFSCME v. City of L.A. matters, one with a modified version), rent control (Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena), climate regulation (Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. Cal. Air Resources Bd.), insurance (Nargizyan v. State Farm; Hughes v. Farmers), and suits against the City (Carranza v. City of Los Angeles). - Criminal: two 'P. v.' captions (Taft, Rockhill); plus a writ proceeding (Schneider v. Superior Court) and mass-tort fee litigation (Pruchnik v. JCCP4621 Common Benefit Com.). ### Associate Justice Natalie P. Stone - California Courts of Appeal · other · published undated · stance: not_applicable - The court's official profile of Stone covers her path from big-firm litigator and appellate staff attorney to nine years as a trial judge and, since May 2024, a Division Seven justice. - Confirmed unanimously by the Commission on Judicial Appointments in May 2024 after Gov. Newsom nominated her. - Clerked for Judge A. Wallace Tashima (Ninth Circuit); 10 years of complex civil litigation at Munger, Tolles & Olson. - Five years as appellate court attorney to Justice Thomas Willhite (Second District, Division Four). - Appointed to LA Superior Court by Gov. Jerry Brown in July 2015; presided over juvenile dependency and criminal matters for nine years. - Founded LA's Food from the Bar drive, which the profile says has raised over $8 million. - Member of the California Judges Association Appellate Committee. ## 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.