judge16 sources, dated 2024-12-26 – 2026-10-15· last searched 2026-10-29
Presiding Justice, Second District, Division Three
Overview
Synthesized 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session from 14 sources dated 2024-12-26 to 2026-10-15. Machine-written; numbers link to the sources below.
Adams has sat on Division Three since 2023 and was confirmed unanimously in August 2026 as its Presiding Justice; this vote is on that new term 15,6,5. Before the bench she litigated employment-discrimination and whistleblower cases, spent nine years as a Court of Appeal research attorney, and was a Superior Court judge from 2017 in dependency and criminal courtrooms 15. She was rated "exceptionally well qualified" for both appointments 15. Her published record from Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026 is 12 authored opinions and one dissent across civil, criminal, family, dependency, and workers' compensation cases 14. Recent rulings went to a media defendant (Netflix) 8, a county agency 9, an insurer 10, and a Proposition 65 plaintiff 7; her one dissent sided with a lemon-law consumer 11. Reform California says do not retain; DSA-LA and the cahighways blog say retain 13,3,2.
Record
Census, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 12 authored published opinions and 1 dissent; 3 of the authored opinions are criminal. Published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished.14
Oct. 15, 2026, Sterndahl v. Sterndahl: dismissed a husband's appeal from a $45,000-a-month temporary support order as nonfinal because the trial court reserved power to modify it.1
Apr. 29, 2026, Chemical Toxin Working Group v. Kroger: reversed dismissal of a Proposition 65 suit; listing outside counsel on the 60-day notice substantially complied.7
Nov. 2025, OneTaste v. Netflix: affirmed anti-SLAPP dismissal of a defamation suit over a documentary; no showing of actual malice.8
Nov. 17, 2025, In re C.L.: affirmed that ICWA did not apply; relatives' reported denials could be credited and one uncle's omission did not make the inquiry inadequate.9
Nov. 10, 2025, Illinois Midwest v. WCAB: annulled an award of ongoing home care; medical-necessity disputes must go through utilization and independent medical review.10
Dec. 26, 2024, Carver v. Volkswagen (dissent): would have let a lemon-law claim proceed where the consumer refused a confidentiality term; the 2-1 majority, joined by then-Judge Hanasono, ruled for Volkswagen.11
Stated positions
In her 2024 dissent: the Song-Beverly Act is remedial, and "Offering to settle a lemon law claim is not necessarily the same as complying with the Act."11
In her 2025-2026 opinions: deference to juvenile-court discretion on ICWA inquiries, review limited to the trial record, and undeveloped arguments forfeited.9,8,1
Praise & support
No ethics or misconduct issues; 'exceptionally well qualified' rating. The blog relies on 'Google AI' summaries. — cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)3
Mostly inoffensive pre-appointment career in employment-discrimination and whistleblower practice; 'probably vote yes.' — Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles2
Criticism & concerns
Do not retain (no reason given; same call for nearly every Second District justice). — Reform California13
What we could not find
None of her three published criminal opinions is summarized here; the sampled texts are civil, family, and dependency cases.
No substantive criticism of her record from any source; the only opposition gives no reason.
No interviews, questionnaires, or statements in her own words outside opinions.
Nothing yet on her work as presiding justice beyond one October 2026 opinion.
Questions to consider
How has she ruled in her criminal appeals (People v. Thompson, Muhammad, Multani)?
The cahighways blog credits her with an opinion in Paperman v. Besser that does not appear in the published-opinion census; is it unpublished or outside the window?
Does her purpose-based reading in the Carver dissent recur in other consumer or employee cases?
Analysis of their legal writing and words
Written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session from 5 primary texts1,7,8,9,11. An evaluative machine reading: check each point against its quoted evidence.
Coverage: Systematic sample under a fixed rule applied to every justice: all separate opinions (up to 3), then the most recent authored opinions, up to 5 texts, from the court's published-opinion listings, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026. Adams has 12 authored opinions and 1 dissent in that window; the sample is 5 texts (1 separate, 4 authored), Dec. 2024 to Oct. 2026: her dissent in Carver v. Volkswagen (S5, lemon law), and majorities in Sterndahl (S1, family-law appealability, as presiding justice), Chemical Toxin v. Kroger (S2, Proposition 65 notice), OneTaste v. Netflix (S3, defamation/anti-SLAPP), and In re C.L. (S4, ICWA inquiry in dependency). None of her three published criminal opinions falls in the sample; no unscripted speech.
Text first, with purpose used to resolve what text leaves open: S2 reads a regulation through the agency's stated objectives, and her S5 dissent reads the Song-Beverly Act as a remedial consumer statute to be construed to deliver its benefits. Strongly deferential to trial courts on discretionary and credibility calls (S4) and strict about appellate limits: appealability (S1), the trial record (S3, refusing 700+ pages of new evidence), and forfeiture of undeveloped arguments (S3). In S3 she applies the actual-malice standard as written, holding that denials and a one-sided documentary do not show malice. Outcomes cut across party types: a consumer side in the S5 dissent and a private Proposition 65 enforcer in S2; a media defendant in S3 and a county agency in S4.
In their words: insufficient_evidence: the opinions contain no statements about herself or her approach.
Articulation: StrongConsistency: Adequate
Articulation. Each opinion states question and answer in its first paragraph, sets out the governing framework, then applies it point by point. Counterarguments are met on their own terms: S3 walks through each item of OneTaste's evidence and explains why it does not bear on Netflix's state of mind, and contrasts Collins v. Waters; S4 names the contrary Claudia R. decision. The dissent (S5) is compact, concedes the text's clear part ("The language of section 1793.26, subdivision (c) is clear and unambiguous on that point.") before locating the disagreement, and draws on Supreme Court precedent and legislative history. Prepared judicial prose only.
Consistency. Five texts over 22 months in five unrelated fields, so no single position can be tracked over time. The method is steady: text first, purpose for gaps (S2, S5), and close adherence to standards of review and appellate limits (S1, S3, S4). Her dissent's purpose-based reading and her deference in majorities address different questions and do not conflict. No shifts found.
Positions
Lemon-law restitution and confidentiality terms (dissent): A manufacturer cannot avoid statutory restitution because the consumer refuses a confidentiality term the statute permits but does not require.
“VWGA’s offer was not one of unconditional readiness to comply with what the statute required assuming restitution was owed.”112024-12-26
“Offering to settle a lemon law claim is not necessarily the same as complying with the Act.”112024-12-26
Defamation of public figures: Denials and a publisher's one-sided presentation do not show actual malice; the plaintiff must show the publisher doubted the truth.
“OneTaste’s denials, moreover, do not constitute proof of probable falsity.”82025-11-20
“Nor was Netflix required to present an objective account of OneTaste.”82025-11-20
ICWA inquiry in dependency cases: Agency reports of relatives' denials may be credited without verbatim questions, and the adequacy of the inquiry is for the juvenile court's discretion.
“When a report indicates that a child’s relative has denied having Native American ancestry, it is reasonable for the juvenile court to infer that the denial was in response to a social worker’s question.”92025-11-17
“Mother also does not suggest that interviewing the maternal uncle could potentially have filled a gap in the information DCFS already had.”92025-11-17
Proposition 65 pre-suit notice: The contact-information rule is directory; listing outside counsel substantially complies.
“We find Pancho Villa's persuasive and conclude the 60-day notice in this case also substantially complied with section 25903.”72026-04-29
Appealability of temporary support orders: An order the trial court expressly left open to retroactive revision is not final and not appealable.
“We conclude that the order, which left the parties’ rights subject to revision at trial, was not final.”12026-10-15
“We find no basis to “deem” the order at issue here to be appealable.”12026-10-15
Stated principles (4)
Construe remedial statutes in light of their protective purpose where text is silent.
“Yet, allowing a manufacturer to avoid complying with statutory mandates under the Act by insisting on the consumer’s agreement to an extraneous term the statute permits, but does not require, would seem to be entirely at odds with the Act’s consumer protective purpose.”112024-12-26
“Contrary to defendants' suggestion, recent case law does not establish that the literal language of a statute or regulation definitively settles the question of whether it is mandatory or directory.”72026-04-29
Apply the standard of review as written, deferring to trial-court discretion and credibility findings.
“These fundamental precepts of appellate review remain applicable in ICWA inquiry cases.”92025-11-17
Review the record that was before the trial court and hold parties to properly developed arguments.
“As a result, we generally do not consider documents that were not before the trial court or matters that occurred after the appealed judgment or order was issued.”82025-11-20
Apply the law in force at the relevant time, leaving change to the Legislature.
“However, the new laws have not yet gone into effect and we are bound to apply the law as it was during the relevant time periods in this case.”112024-12-26
Notable rhetoric
Concedes the weak point of her own dissent: "It may be that allowing a consumer to discuss the financial terms of a manufacturer’s reacquisition of a vehicle under section 1793.2, subdivision (d), is not obviously related to the Act’s purpose." (S5).
Occasional dry characterization of a party's evidence: S3 says a journalist wrote "somewhat euphemistically" that there "was hurt at OneTaste."
Explicit about when a ruling is narrow: S1 tells the losing husband he may raise the issue in his pending appeal from the judgment.
Limits: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; unpublished decisions and opinions she joined are not sampled. The sample contains none of her criminal opinions. Majority opinions are institutional products of a panel; only the dissent is hers alone.
Ask your own AI about this
Start a conversation in an assistant you use, already loaded with this page's research. Nothing goes from this site to those services until you click; after that, their privacy terms apply.
A personal voter-guide blog recommends retaining Adams, finding no ethics or misconduct issues; its discussion relies on "Google AI" summaries rather than primary records.
Recommendation: Retain (Yes).
Reports her "exceptionally well qualified" JNE rating.
Says she sits on the panel hearing rapper Tory Lanez's appeal and wrote an opinion in Paperman v. Besser flagging a citation to a nonexistent case.
Notes her pre-bench employment-discrimination and whistleblower practice.
Facts, claims & caveats
Recommendation
Retain
cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin) applies a default-retain test: retain unless there is malfeasance or similar cause.
The author, citing Google AI, says there are no ethical scandals, disciplinary proceedings, or misconduct concerns involving Adams.
Limits: Advocacy-light personal blog; factual claims are attributed to an AI search summary and are unverified here (e.g., the Lanez panel and Paperman v. Besser). Only the Adams entry was read.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
California Secretary of Stateofficial analysisRecord
The Secretary of State's official list of judicial contests for November 3, 2026 includes a retention question for Presiding Justice Rashida A. Adams, Second District, Division Three.
Ballot question: "Shall Presiding Justice RASHIDA A. ADAMS 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).
Facts, claims & caveats
Office
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three
List date
August 24, 2026
Limits: A ballot listing only; says nothing about her record. Justice Lee Edmon does not appear on it.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Reform California, Carl DeMaio's conservative group, recommends DO NOT RETAIN for Adams, as it does for nearly every Second District justice, without stating reasons specific to her.
Adams: DO NOT RETAIN.
Of 32 Second District justices the guide lists, it recommends retaining three (Chavez, Rothschild, Yegan).
Facts, claims & caveats
Recommendation
Do not retain
Reform California rates candidates, "including school board and judges," in its "Plain English" guide.
Limits: Bare recommendation with no rationale. Its list of Second District justices does not match the Secretary of State's ballot list (it includes names not on the official list). Only the judicial section was read.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
Democratic Socialists of America, Los AngelesendorsementSupports
DSA-LA's guide groups Adams among justices with "mostly inoffensive pre-appointment careers" and says voters should "probably vote yes," citing her employment-discrimination and whistleblower practice.
Adams is described as having worked for a firm specializing in employment discrimination and whistleblower cases.
Recommendation is a soft yes based solely on pre-appointment career.
Facts, claims & caveats
Recommendation
Probably yes
DSA-LA says a Newsom replacement for a non-retained justice is "unlikely to create any systemic change."
Limits: Judged on pre-bench career only, not rulings. Only the appellate section of a long guide was read.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
Judicial Branch of Californiadecision recordRecord
Census of Adams's published Court of Appeal opinions, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 12 authored opinions and one dissent, spread across civil, criminal, family, dependency, and workers' compensation cases.
12 authored opinions; 1 separate opinion (a dissent in Carver v. Volkswagen, Dec. 2024).
Mix: civil litigation (Onetaste v. Netflix, Chemical Toxin v. Kroger, Koenig v. Centralia, Murphy v. Pina, Taylor v. LAUSD, Carver), criminal (People v. Thompson, Muhammad, Multani), family (Sterndahl), juvenile dependency (In re C.L.), workers' compensation (Illinois Midwest v. WCAB), and a writ proceeding (Arriaga v. Superior Court).
Most recent: Sterndahl v. Sterndahl, Oct. 15, 2026.
Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished and are not counted.
Facts, claims & caveats
Authored published opinions
12
Separate opinions (dissents/concurrences)
1 (dissent, Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, B331076, 2024-12-26)
Criminal opinions authored
3 (People v. Thompson, People v. Muhammad, People v. Multani)
Date range
2024-11-26 to 2026-10-15
Division
Second Appellate District, Division Three
The compilers state that authorship was read from each opinion's signature block.
Limits: Published opinions only, which are a minority of an appellate justice's decisions; unpublished and joined opinions are not counted. A count says nothing about outcomes or reasoning.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3court opinionRecord
Writing as presiding justice, Adams dismissed a husband's appeal from an order refusing to lower $45,000-a-month temporary spousal support: because the trial court expressly reserved power to modify the award retroactively, the order was not final and not appealable.
Applies Freitas: an express reservation of jurisdiction makes a temporary support order nonfinal.
Treats the husband's reliance on the later judgment as "an implicit concession" that the order was not final when issued.
Declines to follow Last v. Superior Court's approach of deeming such orders appealable, and refuses to treat the appeal as a writ petition.
Notes the husband can raise the issue in his pending appeal from the judgment.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
Sterndahl v. Sterndahl, B347548
Disposition
Appeal dismissed; costs to respondent
Panel
Adams, P. J. (author), Hanasono, Delgado (assigned)
Support at issue
$45,000 a month temporary spousal support; husband reportedly received about $36.7 million from sale of his business
The court states that discretion to treat an appeal as a writ petition should be exercised only in unusual circumstances, which it finds absent.
Limits: A narrow appellate-jurisdiction ruling; it does not decide whether the support amount was correct.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Threecourt opinionRecord
Writing for a unanimous panel, Adams reversed dismissal of a Proposition 65 suit, holding that a 60-day notice listing outside counsel's contact information, rather than a person inside the plaintiff group, substantially complied with the regulation.
Holds Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 25903(b)(2)(A)(1) is directory, so substantial compliance suffices.
Follows the Fourth District's Pancho Villa's decision.
Analyzes the regulation's purposes through OEHHA's Final Statement of Reasons; rejects defendants' reading of the Prang strict-compliance tests.
Rejects defendants' 'bounty hunter' deterrence argument as outside the regulation's purposes.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
Chemical Toxin Working Group v. Kroger Co., B341662
Disposition
Reversed and remanded
Panel
Adams (author), Edmon, Hanasono
The court quotes OEHHA that the regulation is not intended to "turn the notice requirement into a trap for the unwary."
Limits: One procedural ruling; it reaches no conclusion on whether the mussels violated Proposition 65.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3court opinionRecord
Adams, for a unanimous panel, affirmed dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute of OneTaste's defamation suit against Netflix over its documentary "Orgasm Inc.": OneTaste showed no probability of proving actual malice.
OneTaste's denials, a friend's declaration, and a journalist's later email did not show Netflix doubted the truth of a former employee's abuse allegations.
Netflix relied on prior reporting by multiple outlets and sought OneTaste's comment; a publisher may "present but one side of the story" absent serious doubts.
Refuses to consider over 700 pages of post-ruling evidence offered on appeal through judicial notice.
Treats undeveloped constitutional challenges to the anti-SLAPP statute as forfeited and refers policy objections to the Legislature.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
OneTaste Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., B339113
Disposition
Affirmed; costs to Netflix
Panel
Adams (author), Egerton, Hanasono
Publication
Filed unpublished Oct. 30, 2025; certified for publication Nov. 20, 2025 at the request of Netflix and a non-party
OneTaste argued Netflix knew the allegations were false and that the actual-malice standard and anti-SLAPP provisions are unconstitutional.
Netflix argued it relied on reputable reporting and that denials alone do not show malice.
Limits: Decides only that OneTaste failed to show actual malice on the record before the trial court; it does not find the allegations true or false.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3court opinionRecord
Adams, for a unanimous panel, affirmed juvenile-court findings that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not apply, holding that agency reports of relatives' denials of Native ancestry may be credited without verbatim questions, and that skipping one hard-to-reach uncle did not make the inquiry inadequate.
Rejects the argument that DCFS reports must document the exact questions social workers asked relatives.
Stresses deferential review: adequacy of the inquiry is "quintessentially discretionary" under Dezi C.
Distinguishes In re Claudia R., which found an inquiry inadequate where available relatives were not interviewed.
Unpublished part affirms denial of the father's section 388 petition for lack of changed circumstances.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
In re C.L., B345433 (with B345437, B346370)
Disposition
Affirmed
Panel
Adams (author), Edmon, Hanasono
Publication
Partial; part II (father's section 388 petition) unpublished
The mother argued DCFS's ICWA inquiry was inadequate because the record did not show relatives were actually asked and the maternal uncle was not asked.
The court notes a split: In re C.R. upheld a similar inquiry while In re Claudia R. required interviews of all reasonably available relatives.
Limits: Turns on this record and a deferential standard of review; the opinion acknowledges other appellate courts have reached different results on similar inquiries.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Threecourt opinionRecord
Writing for a unanimous panel, Adams annulled a workers' compensation award of ongoing home health care, holding that disputes over the medical necessity of continuing treatment must go through utilization review and independent medical review, not the Appeals Board. The opinion rejects the Board's Patterson "ongoing treatment" exception.
Holds that Labor Code section 4610.5 makes independent medical review the only route to challenge a utilization-review denial, including for long-running treatment.
Rejects Patterson v. The Oaks Farm (2014) to the extent it created a contrary rule for post-2013 injuries.
Declines to read approvals into section 4610(k)'s 12-month rule, citing the court's lack of power to rewrite statutes.
Corrects the Board's description of this court's summary denials as approving Patterson.
Footnote limits the holding to timely, fixed-duration requests reviewed through utilization review.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
Illinois Midwest Ins. Agency v. WCAB (Rodriguez), B344044
Disposition
Annulled and remanded
Panel
Adams (author), Edmon, Egerton
Status
Review granted by the California Supreme Court
The court concludes the statutory framework evinces a purpose to place medical necessity decisions exclusively with medical professionals.
Limits: Review granted, so the opinion is not final precedent. One case; an injured worker lost continuing care, but the result turns on statutory text.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3court opinionRecord
Adams dissented from a 2-1 decision that Volkswagen's prelitigation repurchase offer defeated a lemon-law claim; she would hold that a manufacturer cannot withhold statutory restitution because the consumer refused a confidentiality term.
Majority (Edmon, joined by Hanasono sitting by assignment) held a prompt, Act-compliant restitution offer satisfied the warranty duty and the implied-warranty claim failed for lack of damages.
Dissent: the Song-Beverly Act is remedial and should be read to bring its benefits into action, citing Niedermeier v. FCA.
Dissent: section 1793.26(c) permits confidentiality clauses but nothing shows the Legislature meant a consumer to forfeit restitution by refusing one.
Dissent distinguishes settlement from compliance: "Offering to settle a lemon law claim is not necessarily the same as complying with the Act."
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
Carver v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., B331076
Disposition
Summary judgment for defendants affirmed, 2-1
Panel
Edmon, P. J. (author), Hanasono (assigned superior court judge) concurring; Adams dissenting
Offer
Repurchase offer included $8,542.85 reimbursement plus payoff of the lease, conditioned on confidentiality of financial terms
The majority says the statute permits manufacturers to include some terms not in the statute, such as transfer of title, as the dissent acknowledges.
The dissent says confidentiality is not an intrinsically necessary condition of restitution.
Limits: The dissent is not the law of the case. It notes AB 1755's new lemon-law procedures, effective 2025, may change the landscape for prelitigation offers.
The judicial branch announces the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Adams as Presiding Justice of Division Three, filling Justice Lee Edmon's seat.
Confirmed by unanimous vote of Chief Justice Guerrero, Attorney General Bonta, and Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild.
Confirmation is subject to the Nov. 3 retention vote, with a term beginning January 4, 2027.
Facts, claims & caveats
Vote
Unanimous, 3–0
Vacancy
Retirement of Justice Lee Edmon
Limits: Announcement; hearing documents are linked but not summarized here.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Governor Newsom's release nominating Adams as Presiding Justice of Division Three to fill the vacancy left by Justice Lee Edmon's retirement, among eight appellate nominations.
Adams fills the vacancy created by Edmon's retirement.
Her appointment to a term beginning January 4, 2027 is subject to the Nov. 3, 2026 retention vote.
The court's official profile of Adams: Presiding Justice of Division Three, an associate justice there since 2023, with a background in employment-discrimination and whistleblower practice, civil litigation, nine years as a Court of Appeal research attorney, and six years as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.
Practiced employment discrimination and whistleblower litigation in Washington, D.C.; civil litigation in Los Angeles from 2005.
Research attorney, Second District, Division Eight, from 2008.
Appointed to Los Angeles Superior Court in 2017 (juvenile dependency and criminal courtrooms).
Appointed associate justice in 2023 and presiding justice in 2026.
Rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission for both roles; confirmed unanimously in April 2023 and August 2026.
Facts, claims & caveats
Education
Harvard University; Yale Law School
JNE rating
Exceptionally well qualified (both appointments)
Confirmations
April 2023 (associate justice); August 2026 (presiding justice), unanimous
The Judicial Nominees Evaluation Commission rated her "exceptionally well qualified" for both roles, per the court.
Limits: Self-published court biography; describes career, not decisions.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.