# Justice Victor G. Viramontes *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 2017-11-02 to 2026-10-14. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 22 sources) Viramontes was a MALDEF and EEOC civil-rights litigator and a Superior Court judge from 2017; he has been on Division Eight since 2022 [Associate Justice Victor G. Viramontes; Commission Confirms Appellate Court Appointments]. LAist lists a 2022 State Bar rating of "Exceptionally well qualified" [2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot]. The census lists 20 authored published opinions (18 distinct cases) and 1 separate opinion from October 2024 to October 2026 [Published opinions by Victor G. Viramontes, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]; that separate opinion is a concurrence co-signed with Presiding Justice Stratton, written in her voice [Merrick v. Lau (B322994, 2024-12-17; joint concurrence by Stratton, P. J., and Viramontes, J.)]. In 2026 he wrote majorities that refused an RV maker's out-of-state forum clause [Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)], extended dependency jurisdiction to domestic violence in a child's presence [In re Miguel J. (B339932A, 2026-08-03; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)], and denied a reality-TV star's anti-SLAPP motion over a private sex video [Leviss v. Madix (B340116, 2026-08-05; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes); Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)]; Wiley dissented or concurred only in the result in each. He also upheld Cal/OSHA's subpoena to Uber over a delivery driver's death while sending its scope back for narrowing [Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (B340734, 2026-06-18; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)], and required a juvenile court to weigh a father's ability to pay for a visitation monitor [In re Reyna R. (B338698, 2026-02-09; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)]. Other rulings went for a resentenced defendant [People v. Duenas, B335274] and for an employer seeking arbitration [Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Administrative Services, B338584]. Reform California says do not retain [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County]; DSA-LA [DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide] and a blog [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] lean retain. ### Record highlights - Census, Oct 2024 to Oct 2026: 20 authored published opinions in 18 distinct cases (Leviss and Miguel J. each listed twice; 5 criminal appeals, 3 dependency cases, the rest civil) and 1 separate opinion, a co-signed concurrence. Published opinions only. [Published opinions by Victor G. Viramontes, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Aug 2026, Leviss v. Madix: majority holding that copying and sending a secretly recorded sex video was not anti-SLAPP-protected activity; Wiley dissented. [Leviss v. Madix (B340116, 2026-08-05; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes); Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] - Aug 3, 2026, In re Miguel J.: on rehearing, held section 300(a) jurisdiction can rest on a parent's intentional violence against the other parent in the child's presence; Wiley concurred only in the result. [In re Miguel J. (B339932A, 2026-08-03; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] - June 18, 2026, Cal/OSHA v. Uber: unanimously upheld the agency's power to subpoena records to decide whether a deceased delivery driver was an employee or a Prop. 22 contractor, but reversed the order compelling all 20 request categories and remanded to narrow scope. [Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (B340734, 2026-06-18; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] - Feb 13, 2026, Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach: refused to enforce an Indiana forum clause against California lemon-law buyers, joining Lathrop and Hardy; Wiley dissented. [Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley); Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., B339037] - Feb 9, 2026, In re Reyna R.: unanimously reversed an order making a father pay for a professional visitation monitor without inquiry into his ability to pay or unpaid alternatives. [In re Reyna R. (B338698, 2026-02-09; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] - Jan 2026, Tuufuli: enforced an employment arbitration agreement under the FAA as the parties chose; Supreme Court granted review. [Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Administrative Services, B338584] - May 2025, People v. Duenas: required full resentencing after habeas relief, over a dissent; Supreme Court granted review. [People v. Duenas, B335274] - Dec 2024, Merrick v. Lau: co-signed Stratton's concurrence condemning a trial judge's "little Chinese woman" remark as stereotyping. [Merrick v. Lau (B322994, 2024-12-17; joint concurrence by Stratton, P. J., and Viramontes, J.)] - Feb 2024, Ayers v. FCA: wrote separately against applying section 998 cost-shifting to a lemon-law case that settled; Supreme Court granted review. [Ayers v. FCA US, LLC, B315884] ### Stated positions - Public-figure status does not make intimate recordings a matter of public interest (Aug 2026). [Leviss v. Madix (B340116, 2026-08-05; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] - Courts should not add a mental-state requirement to section 300(a) unless the Legislature does (Aug 2026). [In re Miguel J. (B339932A, 2026-08-03; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] - The Labor Code is read liberally to protect workers; courts will not imply a time limit on Cal/OSHA's investigations that the Legislature did not write (June 2026). [Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (B340734, 2026-06-18; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] - Contract terms that waive unwaivable consumer rights cannot be rescued by a later stipulation (Feb 2026). [Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] - A parent who timely objects that he cannot afford a paid monitor is entitled to an inquiry into ability to pay and alternatives (Feb 2026). [In re Reyna R. (B338698, 2026-02-09; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] ### Where sources disagree - Wiley disputes his readings: in Diaz (market choice defeats oppression), Leviss (#Scandoval was a public issue) and Miguel J. (holding stretches jurisdiction and is ambiguous). [Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley); In re Miguel J. (B339932A, 2026-08-03; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes); Leviss v. Madix (B340116, 2026-08-05; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] ### Gaps - Unpublished opinions, most of his work, are not covered. - His only published separate opinion in the period is co-signed and in a colleague's voice; no solo dissent or concurrence since 2024. - No interviews, questionnaire answers or speeches. - Several cited rulings are under Supreme Court review; outcomes not yet known. - Critics of his record are unnamed; the blog's reference to corporate-defense scrutiny is unsourced. ### Arguments for / praise - Former MALDEF counsel praised as "an exemplary and accomplished civil rights litigator" (2017). — *Thomas Saenz, MALDEF* [Statement on appointment of MALDEF national senior counsel to Los Angeles Superior Court judgeship] - His MALDEF career is positive; voters should probably vote yes. — *DSA-LA* [DSA-LA 2026 General Election Voter Guide] - Found no scandals or discipline; retain. — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] ### Arguments against / criticism - Do not retain (no reason given). — *Reform California* [Reform California voter guide: Los Angeles County] - Applying unconscionability to an ordinary competitive purchase is "a bad use of a good law" (dissent to his Diaz majority). — *Justice John Wiley* [Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Systematic sample by a fixed rule: from the court's published-opinion listings (Oct 2024 to Oct 2026), his separate opinions newest first (one exists), then his most recent authored opinions, five texts in all, counted by case. Five cases: Leviss v. Madix (S1, anti-SLAPP, Aug 2026, with its modification order; over a Wiley dissent), In re Miguel J. (S2, dependency jurisdiction, on rehearing, Aug 2026; Wiley concurs in result), Division of Occupational Safety & Health v. Uber Technologies (S3, agency subpoena, June 2026; unanimous), Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach (S4, consumer forum clause, Feb 2026; over a Wiley dissent), and the Merrick v. Lau concurrence (S5, Dec 2024). S5 is a joint concurrence co-signed by Stratton, P. J., and Viramontes, written in Stratton's first person; it shows views he co-signed, not his own prose. Colleagues' dissents and concurrences in S1, S2 and S4 were not treated as his words. Prepared written opinions only; nothing from 2025; no criminal case; no speeches, interviews or questionnaires. Conventional and precedent-driven. He frames each question with the Supreme Court's governing test: FilmOn in S1, R.T. and N.R. in S2, Brovelli in S3, Ramirez and Armendariz in S4. He starts from statutory text and dictionary meaning, then checks legislative history and purpose (S2). He surveys conflicting appellate decisions before choosing among them; in S4 he joins Lathrop and Hardy over Kim. He declines to add terms the Legislature did not write, a mental-state requirement in S2 and a time limit on investigations in S3, and defers to trial courts on credibility (S2). He reads worker- and consumer-protection statutes broadly: the Labor Code 'to favor the protection of employees' (S3) and unwaivable Song-Beverly rights over contract terms (S4). He protects privacy in intimate material even for public figures, and limits the anti-SLAPP inquiry to the conduct actually sued on (S1). Results favored the plaintiff (S1), the child-welfare agency (S2), the state safety agency, while trimming its overbroad requests (S3), and the consumer (S4); Wiley contests S1 and S4 and concurs only in S2's result. The co-signed S5 concurrence condemns a trial judge's ethnic and gender remark as a breach of judicial ethics. Articulation: **strong**. Prepared texts only. The opinions are carefully organized and precise. Each states the question, lays out the governing test, surveys the authorities, applies them to the record and answers the losing side's arguments. S4 sets out Lathrop, Hardy and Kim in turn before choosing among them. S1 responds directly to the dissent's damages point. S2 uses dictionaries, Supreme Court guidance, legislative history and case law in sequence. S3 takes Uber's objections one by one under numbered headings and ties the remand to specific subpoena definitions ('DRIVER(S)', 'USER(S)'). The prose is formal and citation-heavy, without flourish, and long passages restate other courts' reasoning (S2, S4), clear to lawyers but slower for lay readers. Consistency: **adequate**. Across four authored cases (Feb to Aug 2026) his method is steady: Supreme Court frameworks, text then history, refusal to add statutory terms (S2, S3), and narrow holdings that say what is not decided (S1, S3). Results do not run toward one kind of party. The window is six months for authored work plus one 2024 co-signed concurrence, so consistency over time cannot be judged. No shifts are observable. - Anti-SLAPP: public figures and private sexual material: A person's public-figure status does not make secretly recorded intimate videos a matter of public interest. The anti-SLAPP inquiry looks at the conduct sued on, not the damages that flow from it. - "However, Leviss’s status as a person in the public eye does not mean that every aspect of her personal life was itself a matter of public concern." [Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-08-18) - "As in Michaels, the fact that Leviss and Sandoval were romantically involved may have been an issue of legitimate public interest, but the secretly recorded videos of their sexual activity were not." [Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-08-18) - Dependency jurisdiction from domestic violence: Section 300(a) reaches a parent's intentional violence against the other parent in the child's presence when the child is put at risk of serious physical harm. No added mental state toward the child is required unless the Legislature adds one. - "It is thus reasonable to infer that the plain meaning of the term “nonaccidentally” is “intentionally.”" [In re Miguel J. (B339932A, 2026-08-03; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] (2026-08-03) - "Unless and until the Legislature sees fit to amend section 300, subdivision (a), to provide that the parent’s mental state must have at least been reckless with respect to the injury to the child, we decline to read such a requirement into the statute." [In re Miguel J. (B339932A, 2026-08-03; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] (2026-08-03) - Workplace-safety agency subpoenas (app-based drivers): Cal/OSHA may subpoena records to decide whether a deceased delivery driver was an employee or a Proposition 22 independent contractor, without first winning a declaratory judgment; its subpoena power is not limited to site inspections and is not cut off by the citation deadline. But requests not shown to be relevant, such as customers' records, must be reconsidered. - "OSHA was not required to first obtain a declaratory judgment finding Park to be an employee before it could undertake an investigation and issue a subpoena to Uber." [Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (B340734, 2026-06-18; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] (2026-06-18) - "We do not believe the statutory language should be interpreted in a manner that gives employers the ability to thwart OSHA’s enforcement and investigatory responsibilities." [Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (B340734, 2026-06-18; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] (2026-06-18) - "There is inadequate discussion explaining how records related to users or customers of Uber’s digital platforms are relevant to determining Park’s status as an independent contractor" [Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (B340734, 2026-06-18; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes)] (2026-06-18) - Out-of-state forum clauses in consumer warranties: A forum clause tied to a warranty that waived unwaivable Song-Beverly rights is unenforceable. A manufacturer's later offer to stipulate to California law does not cure it, and severance would not serve justice. - "We agree with the reasoning in Lathrop and Hardy and apply it here." [Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-02-13) - "But that inconvenience does not relieve Thor of its obligation to comply with California’s consumer-protection laws if it wishes to do business in this state" [Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-02-13) - Judicial conduct and bias (co-signed concurrence): Co-signed a concurrence holding that a trial judge's remark about a litigant's ethnicity and gender breached the judicial ethics canons, even though it did not affect the ruling. - "Demeaning any litigant, as the court did here, is categorically unacceptable." [Merrick v. Lau (B322994, 2024-12-17; joint concurrence by Stratton, P. J., and Viramontes, J.)] (2024-12-17) Limitations: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; most appeals are decided in unpublished opinions. The one separate opinion is co-signed and written in a colleague's voice, so no sample text shows him writing alone in disagreement. Nothing is from 2025 and none is a criminal case, though five of his 18 published cases in the window are criminal appeals. No unscripted speech. Joined majority opinions, which the census does not list, are not covered. S2 is long and 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)) - **2026-10-01** — 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) - **2026-08-18** — Modified opinion filed in Leviss v. Madix (B340116M), by Viramontes (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-08-18** — Published: Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-08-14** — Order modifying opinion filed; no change in judgment (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-08-05** — Published: Leviss v. Madix (B340116, 2026-08-05; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-08-05** — Leviss v. Madix opinion filed, 2-1 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-08-05** — Original opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-08-03** — Opinion filed in In re Miguel J. (B339932A), by Viramontes (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-08-03** — Published: In re Miguel J. (B339932A, 2026-08-03; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-08-03** — Opinion on rehearing filed affirming jurisdiction (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-06-18** — Published: Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (B340734, 2026-06-18; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-06-18** — Court of Appeal opinion filed (Viramontes, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-06-18** — Opinion filed in Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (B340734), by Viramontes (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-02-13** — Opinion filed in Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037), by Viramontes (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-02-13** — Published: Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-02-13** — Diaz v. Thor decided 2-1 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-02-13** — Published: Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., B339037 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-02-13** — Opinion filed reversing order staying Song-Beverly action (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-02-09** — Published: In re Reyna R. (B338698, 2026-02-09; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-02-09** — Court of Appeal reverses the paid-monitor requirement and remands (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-01-13** — Published: Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Administrative Services, B338584 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-01-13** — Opinion filed affirming order compelling arbitration (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2025-09-22** — Original opinion filed; rehearing later granted (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2025-06-13** — Published: E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist., B325733 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight (via Justia)) - **2025-06-13** — Opinion filed in E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist. (B325733), by Viramontes (Judicial Branch of California) - **2025-05-27** — Published: People v. Duenas, B335274 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2025-05-27** — Opinion filed reversing and remanding for full resentencing (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2024-12-17** — Concurring opinion in Merrick v. Lau (B322994) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2024-12-17** — Published: Merrick v. Lau (B322994, 2024-12-17; joint concurrence by Stratton, P. J., and Viramontes, J.) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2024-12-17** — Opinion certified for publication (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2024-11-27** — Opinion filed (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2024-10-29** — Opinion filed in Batta v. Hunt (B326589), by Viramontes (Judicial Branch of California) - **2024-06-20** — Superior Court granted petition to compel compliance (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2024-05-29** — Juvenile court signs custody exit order requiring a professional monitor paid by the father (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2024-02-27** — Published: Ayers v. FCA US, LLC, B315884 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2024-02-27** — Opinion filed; Viramontes concurred in part and dissented in part (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2023-12-07** — Cal/OSHA issued citation to Uber (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2023-09-05** — Cal/OSHA served administrative subpoena on Uber (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2023-05-26** — Delivery driver Dino Park fell after an Uber Eats delivery; he died days later (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2022-11-30** — Published: Commission Confirms Appellate Court Appointments (California Courts Newsroom) - **2022-11-30** — Confirmed to Second District, Division Eight (California Courts Newsroom) - **2022-11** — Confirmed unanimously (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) - **2022-10-07** — Published: Governor Newsom Announces Judicial Appointments 10.7.22 (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom) - **2022-10-07** — Nominated by Gov. Newsom (Office of Governor Gavin Newsom) - **2022-10** — Nominated to Court of Appeal (California Courts of Appeal, Second District) - **2017-11-02** — Published: Statement on appointment of MALDEF national senior counsel to Los Angeles Superior Court judgeship (MALDEF) - **2017-11-02** — MALDEF statement on his Superior Court appointment (MALDEF) - **2017-11** — Appointed to LA County Superior Court (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; it lists Viramontes among justices with "mostly inoffensive" careers whom voters "should probably vote yes on," calling his MALDEF career "Positive." - Cites his MALDEF career as the reason for a favorable view. ### 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 Viramontes and concludes "Retain (Yes)." - Notes his EEOC and MALDEF civil-rights background. - Says he received an "exceptionally well qualified" rating and unanimous confirmation. ### 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 Viramontes as a Newsom-appointed Division Eight associate justice rated "Exceptionally well qualified" by the State Bar (2022). - Lists State Bar (JNE Commission) rating: Exceptionally well qualified (2022). - 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: Victor G. Viramontes appears as Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight, with the question "Shall Associate Justice VICTOR G. VIRAMONTES 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. ### Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2026-08-18 · stance: not_applicable - The modified version of Viramontes's majority opinion in Leviss v. Madix, with a modification order that only corrects a year in the dissent's citation. The majority holds that copying and sending a secretly recorded sex video of a reality-TV cast member was not conduct in connection with a public issue under the anti-SLAPP statute; Wiley dissents. Text otherwise matches the 2026-08-05 opinion. - Applies the FilmOn (2019) two-step test: what public issue, and did the conduct contribute to public discussion of it. - Holds a public figure's status does not make "every aspect of her personal life" a matter of public concern; cites Penal Code section 647(j)(4) and Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group. - Declines to decide whether Madix's conduct was illegal as a matter of law. - Leaves open that Madix's public comments about the videos could be protected, and expresses no view on the merits. - Responds to the dissent: anti-SLAPP analysis looks to the wrongful conduct, not the damages that flow from it. ### Leviss v. Madix (B340116, 2026-08-05; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2026-08-05 · stance: not_applicable - Viramontes's majority affirms denial of Ariana Madix's anti-SLAPP motion: her alleged accessing, copying, and sending of a secretly recorded sex video of Rachel Leviss was not activity "in connection with a public issue," even though the affair itself drew wide media attention. Wiley dissents. - Applies the FilmOn (2019) two-step test: what public issue, and did the conduct contribute to public discussion of it. - Holds a public figure's status does not make "every aspect of her personal life" a matter of public concern; cites Penal Code section 647(j)(4) and Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group. - Declines to decide whether Madix's conduct was illegal as a matter of law. - Leaves open that Madix's public comments about the videos could be protected, and expresses no view on the merits. - Responds to the dissent: anti-SLAPP analysis looks to the wrongful conduct, not the damages that flow from it. ### In re Miguel J. (B339932A, 2026-08-03; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2026-08-03 · stance: not_applicable - On rehearing, Viramontes's majority holds dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(a) can rest on a parent's intentional violence against the other parent in the child's presence when the child's exposure risks serious physical harm, even without intent toward the child. Affirms jurisdiction and removal of an infant whose father hit the mother while she was pregnant or holding him. Wiley concurs only in the result. - Reads "nonaccidentally" as "intentionally" from dictionaries and In re R.T. (2017), then surveys legislative history and prior domestic-violence cases. - Declines to add a recklessness requirement toward the child: "Unless and until the Legislature sees fit to amend" the statute. - Defers to the juvenile court's credibility finding favoring the mother's initial accounts over her recantation. - Wiley's concurrence calls the holding an "unprecedented stretch" and proposes Model Penal Code mental-state categories instead. ### Div. of Occupational Saf. & Health v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (B340734, 2026-06-18; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2026-06-18 · stance: not_applicable - Opinion by Viramontes (Stratton, P. J., and Scherb, J., concurring) largely upholding enforcement of a Cal/OSHA administrative subpoena served on Uber after an Uber Eats delivery driver, Dino Park, died from a fall following a delivery. The court held the agency may subpoena records to determine whether the driver was an employee or a Proposition 22 independent contractor, that its subpoena power is not limited to on-site inspections, and that issuing a citation did not moot the subpoena. It reversed the order to the extent it compelled all 20 document categories without limit and remanded for the trial court to reconsider relevance and overbreadth. - An agency may subpoena records to determine whether it has jurisdiction; Cal/OSHA need not first win a declaratory judgment that the driver was an employee. - Labor Code section 6314(c) subpoena power is not confined to inspections of a place of employment; the court reads the Labor Code liberally to protect workers. - The six-month citation deadline in Labor Code section 6317 limits only citations, not investigations. - Requests 8 to 20, which could reach customers' records, were not shown to be relevant; remanded to narrow scope. ### Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2026-02-13 · stance: not_applicable - Viramontes's majority reverses a stay that would have sent a California lemon-law suit over a $400,000 motorhome to Indiana: Thor's forum clause is unenforceable even with its offer to stipulate to California law, because the warranty as written waived unwaivable Song-Beverly rights. Joins Lathrop and Hardy over Kim; Wiley dissents. - Evaluates unconscionability as of contract formation; Thor's later offer is "an offer to modify the contract; an offer that was never accepted" (quoting Armendariz). - Severance would not serve justice: it protects only savvy buyers and rewards keeping unenforceable terms. - Rejects Thor's argument that nationwide compliance is too burdensome and that buyers of luxury goods can always walk away. - Notes Thor offered no evidence any manufacturer sells motorhomes without similar clauses. - Wiley's dissent argues a competitive market for luxury goods defeats any claim of oppression. ### Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., B339037 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2026-02-13 · stance: not_applicable - Viramontes's published opinion refusing to enforce Thor Motor Coach's Indiana forum-selection clause against California lemon-law buyers, despite Thor's offer to stipulate that California law would apply. - Follows Lathrop and Hardy; declines to follow Kim v. Airstream's severance approach. - Holds the warranty was unconscionable when written and that severance would not serve justice for less sophisticated buyers. - Justice Wiley dissented. ### In re Reyna R. (B338698, 2026-02-09; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2026-02-09 · stance: not_applicable - Viramontes's unanimous opinion (Stratton, P. J., and Wiley, J., concurring) reverses the part of a juvenile-court exit order requiring a father to pay for a professional monitor for his visits. Once he timely objected that he could not afford one, the court abused its discretion by not asking whether he could pay or whether an unpaid monitor would do. - Background: dependency over four children based on the father's domestic violence and alcohol abuse; the mother got sole custody and he got monthly monitored visits. - The father's counsel objected that a paid-monitor requirement was effectively "a no visits order"; the record showed he was the family's sole earner and it received food assistance. - The court agrees the nonoffending mother should not share the cost, but says that was not the only alternative. - Remands for a hearing on ability to pay and alternatives, such as an unpaid monitor approved by the mother or DCFS; expresses no view on the outcome and says the parent may sometimes have to bear the cost. - The rest of the custody order is affirmed. ### Tuufuli v. West Coast Dental Administrative Services, B338584 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2026-01-13 · stance: not_applicable - Viramontes's published opinion holding that an employment arbitration agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act when the parties expressly agreed it would be, without proof of interstate commerce. - Affirms order compelling individual arbitration and dismissing class claims. - Rejects reading of Allied-Bruce as limiting FAA to interstate transactions; contrasts FAA section 1's express exemption with section 2. ### E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist., B325733 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight (via Justia) · court opinion · published 2025-06-13 · stance: not_applicable - ### People v. Duenas, B335274 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2025-05-27 · stance: not_applicable - Viramontes's published opinion holding that a defendant resentenced after a successful habeas petition is entitled to full resentencing under new ameliorative laws. - Applies People v. Padilla (2022) and People v. Lopez (2025); expressly declines to follow People v. Esquivias. - Reverses and remands for a new sentencing hearing in a 2011 gang-enhanced assault case. - Justice Grimes dissented. ### Merrick v. Lau (B322994, 2024-12-17; joint concurrence by Stratton, P. J., and Viramontes, J.) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2024-12-17 · stance: not_applicable - A Grimes majority affirms an order deeming a judgment satisfied and finds no due-process violation in a trial judge's remark calling the plaintiff a "little Chinese woman." The separate concurrence, written by Presiding Justice Stratton in the first person and joined by Viramontes, condemns the remark as stereotyping that violated the Code of Judicial Ethics. - Concurrence agrees the ruling itself was not influenced by the remark and was supported by the evidence. - Calls the comment "categorically unacceptable" and a microaggression reflecting implicit bias; cites canons 1, 3(B)(4), 3(B)(5). - Says unwitting remarks are "no excuse" and that judges' words are "scalpels." - Opinion was filed 2024-11-27 and certified for publication 2024-12-17. ### Ayers v. FCA US, LLC, B315884 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2024-02-27 · stance: not_applicable - Published lemon-law costs decision in which Viramontes wrote separately, agreeing section 998 cost-shifting applies to Song-Beverly fee awards but dissenting from applying it to a case that ended in settlement. - Majority (Grimes, Acting P.J.) cut off the buyer's post-offer attorney fees. - Viramontes finds the statute ambiguous and, relying on legislative history and the Madrigal dissent, would not apply cost-shifting to settlements. ### Commission Confirms Appellate Court Appointments - California Courts Newsroom · news · published 2022-11-30 · stance: neutral - Judicial Council release announcing the unanimous confirmation of Viramontes to Division Eight, filling the vacancy from Justice Maria Stratton's elevation. - Confirmed unanimously by Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, AG Bonta and Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert. - Repeats his MALDEF, EEOC and Superior Court career. ### Governor Newsom Announces Judicial Appointments 10.7.22 - Office of Governor Gavin Newsom · news · published 2022-10-07 · stance: neutral - Governor's release nominating Viramontes, 49, of Whittier, to Division Eight. - Lists career: Superior Court judge since 2017, MALDEF, EEOC, Heller Ehrman. - Identifies him as a Democrat. ### Statement on appointment of MALDEF national senior counsel to Los Angeles Superior Court judgeship - MALDEF · news · published 2017-11-02 · stance: support - MALDEF statement on Viramontes's 2017 trial-court appointment, praising its former national senior counsel. - MALDEF president Thomas Saenz calls him "an exemplary and accomplished civil rights litigator." ### Associate Justice Victor G. Viramontes - California Courts of Appeal, Second District · other · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Court biography: Viramontes, on Division Eight since 2022, was a civil-rights litigator at MALDEF and the EEOC and a Los Angeles Superior Court judge from 2017. - Clerked for U.S. District Judge Carlos Moreno (C.D. Cal.) 1999; Heller Ehrman associate 2000-2001. - MALDEF staff attorney 2001-2005; EEOC trial attorney 2005-2008 and senior trial attorney 2008-2010; MALDEF national senior counsel from 2010. - Appointed to LA Superior Court by Gov. Brown, Nov. 2017; nominated to Division Eight by Gov. Newsom, Oct. 2022. - Rated "exceptionally well qualified"; confirmed unanimously Nov. 2022. ### Former teacher's rulings range from school safety to dependency law - 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 LA County slate lists Victor G. Viramontes (Associate Justice) as "DO NOT RETAIN." - Recommends no on nearly every Second District justice; RETAIN only for Victoria Chavez, Frances Rothschild and Kenneth Yegan. ### Published opinions by Victor G. Viramontes, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Census of Justice Victor G. Viramontes's published opinions, Second District, Division 8, Oct 2024 to Oct 2026, compiled from the court's listings with authorship read from signature blocks. It counts 20 authored opinions and 1 separate opinion, a concurrence in Merrick v. Lau (Dec 2024). The 20 listings include two entries each for Leviss v. Madix (original and modified, B340116/B340116M) and In re Miguel J. (B339932 and B339932A), so they cover 18 distinct cases. The mix is broad: criminal appeals (Duenas, Horton, Virgen, Richardson, Ellis), juvenile dependency (Reyna R., R.L., Miguel J.), consumer and lemon-law disputes (Diaz v. Thor, Tuufuli), anti-SLAPP (Leviss), workplace-safety enforcement (OSHA v. Uber), school liability (E.I. v. El Segundo USD) and other civil matters. - 20 authored published opinions (18 distinct cases) and 1 separate opinion (a concurrence). - Most recent: Leviss v. Madix, modified opinion, Aug 18, 2026; earliest in window: Batta v. Hunt, Oct 29, 2024. - Roughly a quarter of the cases are criminal appeals, three are dependency cases, and the rest are civil. - Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished, and opinions he joined are not listed. ### 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; Victor G. Viramontes 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. ### Unusual opposition speech as 3 appellate justices are confirmed - Daily Journal · news · published undated · stance: neutral - ## 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.