# Justice John Wiley *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 2020-04-07 to 2026-10-22. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-29, from 14 sources) Wiley, a former UCLA law professor and federal prosecutor, has been a trial judge since 2002 and a Division Eight justice since 2018 [Associate Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr.]. From October 2024 to October 2026 he authored 42 published opinions and wrote 10 separate ones (5 dissents, 5 concurrences), counting re-filings [Published opinions by John Wiley, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)]. His recent opinions reach outcomes for both sides. In October 2026 he suppressed a gun found in an improper inventory search [People v. Thomas, B348094] and upheld a school district's unpaid leave for a teacher who refused the vaccine [Smith v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (B347288, 2026-10-07; opinion by John Wiley)]. In 2026 he dissented to favor an employee escaping arbitration [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)], a lender enforcing a $1.5 million clause [Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc. (B343435, 2026-08-24; dissenting opinion by John Wiley)], a remand of a reality-TV star's anti-SLAPP motion [Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] and an RV maker's forum clause [Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)]. His dissents are blunt and colloquial [Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc. (B343435, 2026-08-24; dissenting opinion by John Wiley); Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)]. The sources hold no ethics findings; one blog says it found none [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices]. ### Record highlights - Census, Oct 2024 to Oct 2026: 42 authored published opinions and 10 separate opinions (5 dissents, 5 concurrences); about 17 of the authored entries are criminal or juvenile matters. Published opinions only. [Published opinions by John Wiley, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings)] - Oct 22, 2026, People v. Thomas: ordered a gun suppressed because police used an inventory search to investigate without probable cause. [People v. Thomas, B348094] - Oct 7, 2026, Smith v. Burbank USD: affirmed that unpaid leave was a reasonable religious accommodation for a teacher who refused the COVID-19 vaccine. [Smith v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (B347288, 2026-10-07; opinion by John Wiley)] - Oct 5, 2026, Chin v. DoorDash: dissented from a holding that an employee waived the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act; called his conduct a blunder, not waiver. [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)] - Aug 24, 2026, Lakeshore v. Now Solutions: dissented from voiding a $1.5 million liquidated-damages clause between businesses, and urged further review. [Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc. (B343435, 2026-08-24; dissenting opinion by John Wiley)] - Aug 2026, Leviss v. Madix: dissented, arguing the #Scandoval affair was a matter of public concern under the anti-SLAPP statute. [Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] - Feb 13, 2026, Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach: dissented from refusing to enforce an RV maker's Indiana forum clause. [Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] - 2026: dismissals affirmed on procedural grounds in suits against West Hollywood (Government Claims Act) and in a derivative-suit costs dispute. [Harland v. City of West Hollywood, B343375; Barrios v. Chraghchian (B341773)] - 2020, Ducksworth: affirmed summary judgment against employees' discrimination claims; the Supreme Court later granted review. [Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (B294872)] ### Stated positions - His court profile calls equal justice under law "our national ideal." [Associate Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr.] - Party with the burden must offer evidence: "argument, not evidence" (2026). [Smith v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (B347288, 2026-10-07; opinion by John Wiley); Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc. (B343435, 2026-08-24; dissenting opinion by John Wiley)] - Courts should enforce contracts negotiated by sophisticated, represented parties (Aug 2026), and should not apply unconscionability to ordinary competitive purchases (Feb 2026). [Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc. (B343435, 2026-08-24; dissenting opinion by John Wiley); Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] - Inventory searches cannot cover for criminal investigation; police must develop probable cause (Oct 2026). [People v. Thomas, B348094] ### Where sources disagree - Division Eight colleagues reject his readings in 2026. Scherb and Viramontes found waiver in Chin; Stratton and Viramontes voided the Lakeshore clause; Viramontes rejected his views in Leviss and Diaz. [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley); Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc. (B343435, 2026-08-24; dissenting opinion by John Wiley); Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley); Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. (B339037, 2026-02-13; opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] ### Gaps - No source argues against retaining Wiley. - No State Bar evaluation rating is available online (LAist). - Published opinions only; most of his decisions are unpublished and not covered. - No interviews, questionnaire answers or speeches. - The blog's descriptions of other opinions (Brown, Hohenshelt) are AI-sourced and unverified. ### Arguments for / praise - No ethics scandals, misconduct investigations or discipline found; his candid writing is not a reason to remove him. — *Daniel Faigin (cahighways.org)* [November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices] ## Analysis of their own words (as of 2026-10-29) Coverage: Systematic sample per the fixed rule: his newest separate opinions (up to 3), then his newest authored opinions, 5 texts total. Three dissents (S3 Chin v. DoorDash, arbitration; S4 Lakeshore v. Now Solutions, liquidated damages; S5 Leviss v. Madix, anti-SLAPP) and two majority opinions (S1 People v. Thomas, inventory search; S2 Smith v. Burbank USD, religious accommodation), all August to October 2026. Prepared written opinions only; no speeches, interviews or questionnaires. All five come from one 10-week window, so change over time cannot be tested. The census lists 42 authored and 10 separate published opinions from Oct 2024 to Oct 2026. Text- and burden-focused, with outcomes that do not run one way. He reads statutes closely and plainly (S4) and decides cases by who bore the burden of proof and whether they met it. The prosecution failed to justify a warrantless search (S1). The teacher offered no evidence against the district's hardship showing (S2). The borrower offered no facts to void a clause it signed (S4). He uses classic definitions as fixed tests: waiver means purposely giving up a known right (S3). In contract cases he argues from economics and private ordering, favoring enforcement of deals between represented businesses (S4). On the anti-SLAPP statute he treats mass public attention as evidence of public concern (S5). Results: for a criminal defendant (S1), an employer (S2), an employee resisting arbitration (S3), a lender (S4) and a speech defendant (S5). Articulation: **strong**. Prepared texts only. The prose is plain, short-sentenced and organized for a lay reader. S4 opens by listing the majority's "five problems" and then takes them in order. S4 also walks through the statute "bit by bit" and shows its arithmetic on interest. He uses concrete analogies: a chess blunder (S3) and a reading list for readers new to the reality show (S5). He states the facts precisely and engages the opposing view's authority (Ridgley, Gormley in S4; Baral and Flatley in S5). Weaknesses: S3 is brief and does not engage the majority's waiver authorities. S4's predictions of economic harm rest on scholarship and hypotheticals, not the record. Consistency: **adequate**. Within the sample, his method is steady: he identifies the burden and asks whether it was met (S1, S2, S4), and reads statutory terms by plain or classic meaning (S3, S4). Results vary by side, which suggests he is applying a method, not favoring a party. There may be a tension a reader could weigh: S4 strongly favors enforcing private agreements as written, while S3 would let a party avoid the arbitration agreement he signed. S3 rests on a federal statute that overrides such agreements, which S3 says the employee invoked. All samples fall within ten weeks, so no shifts over time can be tested. - Inventory searches and police motive: An inventory search without probable cause is valid only for a real caretaking purpose. The government bears the burden of showing one, and investigative motive defeats it. - "The inventory exception does not give police a blank check to investigate their intuitions that a car search might turn up evidence of a crime." [People v. Thomas, B348094] (2026-10-22) - "Police must develop probable cause when they suspect someone is a criminal and they think a search will prove it." [People v. Thomas, B348094] (2026-10-22) - Religious accommodation and COVID-19 vaccine mandates: Unpaid leave can be a reasonable FEHA accommodation when it removes the conflict and the employer's hardship evidence is uncontroverted. - "Unpaid leave was a reasonable accommodation because it eliminated the conflict between Smith’s religious practice and the District’s requirement that he receive the COVID vaccination." [Smith v. Burbank Unified School Dist., B347288] (2026-10-07) - "This is argument, not evidence." [Smith v. Burbank Unified School Dist., B347288] (2026-10-07) - Waiver of the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act: A tardy, costly litigation choice is not waiver when the party never meant to give up court. Sanctions, not loss of the statute's protection, are the remedy. - "Waiver, classically, is purposely relinquishing a known right." [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-10-05) - "But a blunder is not a purposeful relinquishment of a known right." [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-10-05) - "I would be sympathetic to a trial court that considered sanctioning plaintiffs’ counsel" [Chin v. DoorDash, Inc. (B348844, 2026-10-05; opinion by Matthew A. Scherb; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-10-05) - Liquidated damages between businesses: Civil Code section 1671(b) puts the burden on the party attacking the clause. Courts should enforce clauses negotiated by represented businesses unless the bargaining was unfair. - "The majority does injustice to the statute, which is clear as a bell." [Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc. (B343435, 2026-08-24; dissenting opinion by John Wiley)] (2026-08-24) - "Because the party seeking to invalidate the provision had the burden but offered no facts about the circumstances, the liquidated damages provision is “valid.”" [Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc. (B343435, 2026-08-24; dissenting opinion by John Wiley)] (2026-08-24) - Anti-SLAPP and public interest: A scandal that drew a mass audience is a matter of public concern. Claims mixing private conduct with public harm should be remanded and separated. - "When a massive public audience gives a public name to an issue, that issue is of public concern." [Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-08-18) - "I would remand for the trial court to sort through this mixture." [Leviss v. Madix (B340116M, 2026-08-18; modified opinion by Victor G. Viramontes; dissent by John Wiley)] (2026-08-18) Limitations: Five published opinions from one ten-week window. Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work, since most appeals are decided in unpublished opinions, and the rule picks dissents first, which emphasize disagreement. The sample has no criminal-appeal dissent, no family or dependency majority, and no unscripted speech. Joined opinions, oral argument and administrative work are not covered. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-10-22** — Published: Smith v. Burbank Unified School Dist., B347288 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-10-22** — Published: People v. Thomas, B348094 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-10-22** — Opinion filed reversing denial of suppression motion in People v. Thomas (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-10-22** — Most recent listed authored opinion (P. v. Thomas) (Judicial Branch of California) - **2026-10-07** — Published: November 2026 General Election Ballot Analysis (IV): Judicial Offices (cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)) - **2026-10-07** — Published: Smith v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (B347288, 2026-10-07; opinion by John Wiley) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-10-07** — Opinion filed affirming summary judgment for Burbank Unified School District (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **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; Wiley dissents (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-10-01** — Published: 2026 election: Court of Appeal justices on the LA and Orange County ballot (LAist) - **2026-08-24** — Published: Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc. (B343435, 2026-08-24; dissenting opinion by John Wiley) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **2026-08-24** — Lakeshore v. Now Solutions decided 2-1; Wiley dissents (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8) - **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 Wiley for retention on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot (California Secretary of State) - **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 (date correction in dissent); no change in judgment (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) - **2026-06-02** — Published: Harland v. City of West Hollywood, B343375 (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-06-02** — Opinion filed in Harland v. City of West Hollywood (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **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** — Opinion and Wiley dissent filed in Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-01-20** — Published: Barrios v. Chraghchian (B341773) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2026-01-20** — Opinion filed in Barrios v. Chraghchian (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2020-04-07** — Published: Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (B294872) (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2020-04-07** — Opinion filed in Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight) - **2018** — Appointed to the Court of Appeal, Division Eight (California Courts of Appeal) - **2002** — Appointed to Los Angeles Superior Court (California Courts of Appeal) ## Sources ### Smith v. Burbank Unified School Dist., B347288 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2026-10-22 · stance: not_applicable - ### People v. Thomas, B348094 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2026-10-22 · stance: not_applicable - Wiley's opinion for a unanimous panel orders a gun suppressed: police impounded and searched a legally parked, properly plated rental car without probable cause, and the prosecution offered no community-caretaking reason that would make it a valid inventory search. - Holds the inventory-search exception cannot be used when the officers' goal was to investigate a suspected crime. - Puts the burden on the prosecution to justify a warrantless search; it did not question the officer about her motive and the trial court made no finding. - Rejects search-incident-to-arrest and automobile-exception theories as well. - Closes by acknowledging gun crime's dangers while insisting police develop probable cause. ### 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 Wiley, finding no ethics or misconduct issues; it describes his candid writing style and three areas where his opinions have drawn debate, relying on "Google AI" summaries. - Recommendation: Retain (Yes). - Describes a concurrence in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District warning about unreliable expert testimony. - Describes a dissent in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court objecting to strict voiding of arbitration agreements over late fee payments. - Says he has criticized automatic reversals of dependency rulings over minor lapses in Native American heritage inquiries. ### Smith v. Burbank Unified School Dist. (B347288, 2026-10-07; opinion by John Wiley) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2026-10-07 · stance: not_applicable - Wiley's opinion affirms summary judgment for Burbank Unified against a teacher who refused the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds: unpaid leave was a reasonable accommodation under FEHA because it removed the conflict and the district's undue-hardship evidence went uncontroverted. - Rejects the teacher's reading that a regulation barring accommodations that 'segregate' an employee rules out unpaid leave. - Relies on Ansonia Bd. of Educ. v. Philbrook (U.S. 1986) that unpaid leave can be a reasonable religious accommodation. - Treats the teacher's claim that one more unvaccinated person posed no hardship as "argument, not evidence." - Notes the district granted every exemption request and treated all exempted teachers alike. ### 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 - Wiley dissents from Scherb's majority, which held an employee waived the federal Ending Forced Arbitration Act by withholding a known sexual-harassment claim until after arbitration was compelled. Wiley calls the conduct a costly blunder, not waiver, because the employee's whole aim was to escape arbitration. - Defines waiver as purposely relinquishing a known right and says the plaintiff never relinquished a court trial. - Uses a chess analogy: losing a queen to an unseen bishop is a blunder, not a purposeful surrender. - Calls the delay "lamentable" and says he would be sympathetic to fee sanctions against plaintiff's counsel. - Would affirm the trial court's refusal to compel arbitration. ### 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 Wiley with his appointing governor; it says his State Bar evaluation rating is not available online and offers no assessment of his record. - Lists Wiley as an associate justice appointed by former Gov. Jerry Brown. - State Bar evaluation rating: "Not available online." - 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 John Wiley ### Lakeshore Investment LLC v. Now Solutions, Inc. (B343435, 2026-08-24; dissenting opinion by John Wiley) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 8 · court opinion · published 2026-08-24 · stance: not_applicable - Wiley dissents from a Stratton majority that voided a $1.5 million liquidated-damages clause in a business settlement as a penalty. He argues Civil Code section 1671(b) puts the burden on the party attacking the clause, the borrower offered no evidence, and courts should enforce deals sophisticated, represented businesses negotiate. - Lists five 'problems' with the majority: misapplied statute, conflict with Gormley v. Gonzalez (2022), illogic, unfairness, economic harm. - Distinguishes Ridgley v. Topa Thrift (1998) as a consumer case the statute treats differently. - Compares the clause to the roughly $4.4 million the lender sought by 2024, not the $450,000 discounted settlement. - Draws on Judge Posner and law-and-economics scholarship; warns the ruling will make business credit costlier. - Calls the borrower's defense a "hey neener neener, gotcha sucker" tactic (quoting Gormley) and urges further review. ### 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 John Wiley, Second District, Division Eight. - Ballot question: "Shall Associate Justice JOHN WILEY 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). ### 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 - Wiley dissents from Viramontes's majority, which held reality-TV star Ariana Madix's alleged copying and sending of a private sex video of Rachel Leviss was not protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute. Wiley says the #Scandoval affair was a matter of public concern and the claims are mixed public and private, so he would remand to sort them out. - Argues that when a mass audience names a scandal, the issue is of public concern. - Notes Leviss's counsel said damages would include public scorn and ridicule, which he says makes the case mainly about public discussion. - Would apply Baral v. Schnitt (2016) and remand on the mixed claims. - Questions the trial court's illegality ground, reading Madix's declaration as describing blanket consent to search the phone. - The record holds the 2026-08-14 modification order (correcting a year in the dissent's citation) plus the opinion. ### Harland v. City of West Hollywood, B343375 - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2026-06-02 · stance: not_applicable - Wiley's opinion affirms dismissal of a trip-and-fall suit against West Hollywood because the plaintiff sued before the Government Claims Act's 45-day waiting period ran, and refiling did not cure it. - Opens by stressing that taxpayers fund claims and "have a powerful interest in managing their government's purse." - Compliance is mandatory even if the city knew of the claim; the premature suit deprived the city of time to investigate. - Distinguishes Malear, whose "narrow" substantial-compliance holding applies only when the original complaint was never served. - The plaintiff forfeited a meet-and-confer argument by not raising it below. ### 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 - Wiley dissents from a ruling that an RV maker's Indiana forum-selection clause is unenforceable against California lemon-law buyers, arguing unconscionability doctrine should not police an ordinary competitive purchase. - The majority (Viramontes, Acting P.J.) followed Lathrop and Hardy, both under Supreme Court review, and reversed the stay. - Wiley: "Applying the doctrine of unconscionability to this ordinary shopping situation is a bad use of a good law." - He reasons that buyers of a $400,000 luxury item can walk away, so there is no oppressive bargaining power, and calls form contracts "contracts of convenience." - He would sever the offending terms, as Kim v. Airstream did, and rejects shifting the burden to the manufacturer. - He warns lemon-law costs may be passed on, raising RV prices for Californians. ### Barrios v. Chraghchian (B341773) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2026-01-20 · stance: not_applicable - Wiley's opinion holds that a plaintiff who beat a bond motion in a derivative suit is still liable for the winning defendant's ordinary costs. - The LLC derivative-suit bond statute contains no words exempting losing plaintiffs from costs; the opinion quotes it at length to "prove this negative." - Follows Brusso (1991): the bond statute is a special procedural rule that does not displace general cost rules. - Freeman and West Hills are "not on point." - Cursory claims, including of trial-court bias, were forfeited for lack of reasoned argument and citations. ### Ducksworth v. Tri-Modal Distribution Services (B294872) - California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight · court opinion · published 2020-04-07 · stance: not_applicable - Wiley's 2020 opinion affirms summary judgment against two Black employees' promotion-discrimination claims against staffing agencies and a harassment claim against an executive as time-barred. - Staffing agencies that had no role in promotion decisions were not liable. - Joins "the vast majority" of courts in reviewing summary-judgment evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, citing the volume and pace of trial-court rulings. - Calls the hearsay question "a close call" and adds a lesson for litigators: "know your Evidence Code." - Holds a failure-to-promote claim accrues when the promotion is offered and accepted, not when the new job starts. ### Published opinions by John Wiley, October 2024 to October 2026 (courts.ca.gov listings) - Judicial Branch of California · decision record · published undated · stance: not_applicable - Court listing of Wiley's published Division Eight opinions, October 2024 to October 2026: 42 authored opinions and 10 separate opinions (5 dissents, 5 concurrences), counting modified re-filings separately. Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished. - About 17 authored entries are criminal or juvenile matters (People v. ..., In re ...); the rest are civil, including several suits against L.A. Unified and other public entities. - Separate opinions: dissents in Chin v. DoorDash, Lakeshore v. Now Solutions, Leviss v. Madix (original and modified), and Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach; concurrences in In re Miguel J. (twice), P. v. Maldonado, P. v. Gresham, P. v. Gudiel. - Several entries are modified or re-filed versions of the same case (e.g., Buchheim v. Anaya appears three times), so counts overstate distinct cases. - Most recent: P. v. Thomas, 2026-10-22. ### Associate Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. - California Courts of Appeal · other · published undated · stance: not_applicable - The court's official profile of Wiley, opening with his statement that equal justice under law is "our national ideal," covers his career as a law professor, federal prosecutor, trial judge from 2002, and Division Eight justice since 2018. - Profile statement: judges "do their best" every day to make equal justice "come true" for litigants. - Appointed to the Superior Court in 2002 and the Court of Appeal in 2018. - Clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. and First Circuit Judge Frank Coffin. - Tenured at UCLA Law School (Distinguished Teaching Award); visiting professor at Harvard; former federal prosecutor. - Lists publications in major law reviews and the American Economics Review. ## 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.