judge14 sources, dated 2025-04-16 – 2026-10-23· last searched 2026-10-29
Associate Justice, Second District, Division Four
Overview
Synthesized 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session from 14 sources dated 2025-04-16 to 2026-10-23. Machine-written; numbers link to the sources below.
Daum joined Division Four in August 2026 after serving on the LA Superior Court since 2022; before that he spent 19 years in private practice, mostly in media and entertainment litigation 14,8,9. The JNE Commission rated him "exceptionally well qualified" 14,5. The court's census lists 4 published opinions he authored from October 2024 to October 2026, all civil, with no dissents or concurrences 11. They read statutes by their text, with mixed winners: a homeowner may sue a city over ADU delay 1; an employer's forced-arbitration agreement is unenforceable 2; a city's design immunity covers claims that its warnings were inadequate 6; a state nuisance case is not barred by the crime-free-housing law 10. Reform California says do not retain; DSA-LA says voters "could vote no" over his corporate background; the cahighways blog says retain 12,4,3.
Record
Published-opinion census, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 4 authored (three filed Sept. 24 to Oct. 23, 2026), 0 dissents or concurrences; all civil, no criminal cases; published opinions only.11
Oct. 23, 2026, Shi v. Palos Verdes Estates: reversed dismissal; ADU applicants may sue under Gov. Code § 815.6 when a city breaches its ministerial-approval duty.1
Oct. 22, 2026, Molina v. Triumph: an arbitration agreement required as a condition of employment in violation of Labor Code § 432.6 is unenforceable when the FAA does not apply.2
Sept. 24, 2026, Tansavatdi v. Rancho Palos Verdes: affirmed summary judgment for the city in a cyclist's death; design immunity may bar claims that approved warnings were inadequate.6
Apr. 16, 2025 (sitting by assignment), People ex rel. Soto v. Group IX: Gov. Code § 53165.1 does not bar a state public-nuisance injunction against a gang-plagued apartment complex.10
Confirmed to the Court of Appeal in August 2026.14,8,9
Stated positions
In his opinions (2025-26): clear statutory text controls; legislative history and purpose are discussed as confirmation, and statutory exceptions are not extended beyond their terms.10,2,1
Praise & support
Rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the JNE Commission. — California Courts of Appeal, LAist14,5
Retain: no misconduct; the commission found two confirmation oppositions insufficient. The blog attributes these facts to 'Google AI.' — cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)4
Criticism & concerns
A corporate media-litigation background could be a reason to vote no, though DSA-LA concedes varied expertise matters. — DSA-LA3
Corporate-side experience may draw scrutiny from consumer and labor advocates, as relayed second-hand. — cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)4
Do not retain (no reason given). — Reform California12
What we could not find
Under three months as a confirmed justice; four published opinions, all civil.
No record from his Superior Court criminal and civil courtrooms.
The two confirmation oppositions are described only by the blog; no primary record.
No statements in his own words outside opinions.
Questions to consider
What did the two confirmation oppositions allege?
How will he rule in criminal appeals, given his Superior Court criminal assignment?
Will the Supreme Court review the Tansavatdi design-immunity rule?
Analysis of their legal writing and words
Written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session from 4 primary texts1,2,6,10. An evaluative machine reading: check each point against its quoted evidence.
Coverage: Four texts chosen by the fixed sampling rule (all separate opinions, newest first, up to 3, then the most recent authored opinions, up to 5 total): 0 separate opinions (he wrote none in the period) and all 4 of his authored published opinions, Apr. 2025 to Oct. 2026. S4 (Soto, nuisance injunction) was written while he sat by assignment from the Superior Court; S1 (Shi, ADU permit delay), S2 (Molina, employment arbitration) and S3 (Tansavatdi, design immunity) date from his first weeks as a confirmed justice. All civil and all unanimous; three involve local governments. No criminal cases, speeches, or interviews.
Textualist with confirmatory history. Each opinion starts from the statutory words and finds them unambiguous (S1, S2, S4); legislative history and purpose are then shown to point the same way, and in S2 he reads a statutory exception narrowly under expressio unius, refusing to imply exceptions the Legislature did not write. He prefers narrow holdings, adopting in S3 a rule more limited than either party sought and marking in S2 what the court does not decide. On deference to other branches, S3 grounds design immunity in keeping juries from second-guessing officials' engineering choices, while S1 holds a city answerable in damages for ignoring a mandatory permit duty. Results vary by party: a homeowner beat a city (S1), an employee beat an employer seeking arbitration (S2), a city beat a bereaved plaintiff (S3), and a city attorney beat a landlord (S4). No ideological label is supported.
In their words: Opinions do not describe the author. On method he writes: 'The decision to consider legislative history in connection with analyzing the construction of a statute is ultimately ours, not the parties’.' (S1).
Articulation: StrongConsistency: Adequate
Articulation. Prepared texts only. Plain, short sentences carry the holdings ('The PNL is a state law. Enforcing it is enforcing a state law.', S4). S2 opens by posing the question in plain terms, states the holding in a numbered three-part question, and sidesteps the burden-of-proof dispute by resting on the moving party's own evidence. S3 lays out the governing Supreme Court opinion at length before applying it, states the rule in lettered elements, and tests it against the plaintiff's strongest objections and the limiting case (Anderson). S4 rests on three independent grounds. Minor citation slips: S4 twice writes 'section 53615.1' for 53165.1, and S3 cites Tansavatdi I as '(2003)' and '14 Cal.4th'.
Consistency. Four opinions on different statutes give no repeated issue to compare over time, so consistency of position cannot be tested. Method is uniform across them: text first, unambiguity found, history and purpose used as confirmation (S1, S2, S4), and narrow holdings that say what is left undecided (S2, S3, S4). No shifts found.
Positions
Local permitting duties for ADUs: Permit applicants are the direct intended beneficiaries of the ministerial-approval duty, so a homeowner can sue under Government Code section 815.6 for delay.
“Allowing permit applicants to receive the benefit of ministerial approval of an ADU without discretionary requirements and burdensome local regulations is not “incidental” to section 66317. It is the point of section 66317.”12026-10-23
Mandatory employment arbitration under Labor Code section 432.6: An arbitration agreement required as a condition of employment is unenforceable under ordinary California illegal-contract law when the FAA does not apply; the statute's savings clause covers only FAA-enforceable agreements. An employer's statement that the worker could sign, negotiate out, or work elsewhere shows the agreement was a condition of employment.
“Thus, it is not plausible to conclude that the Legislature meant section 432.6, subdivision (f) to allow employers to enforce illegally formed arbitration agreements when those agreements are subject only to California law, and federal preemption is not at issue.”22026-10-22
“Indeed, these two “options” are simply another way of stating that Molina’s assent to an arbitration agreement was a condition of her employment.”22026-10-22
Government design immunity for warnings: Where an approved design included some warning, claims that different or additional warnings were needed may be barred; where no warning was given, immunity is not implicated.
“We adopt a more limited rule than urged by either of the parties.”62026-09-24
“Design immunity should apply where design is at issue—but not to cases, like the warnings in Anderson or Flournoy, where it is not.”62026-09-24
Crime-free housing law and nuisance enforcement: Gov. Code section 53165.1 bars local crime-free housing rules but does not reach a state Public Nuisance Law action, even one relying on police reports.
“The PNL is a state law. Enforcing it is enforcing a state law.”102025-04-16
“It is very unlikely that the Legislature intended to apply section 53165.1 to the enforcement of statewide law.”102025-04-16
Stated principles (4)
Plain text controls; legislative history and purpose may confirm but are not needed.
“We do not find statutory interpretation difficult here.”12026-10-23
“Although we do not rely on it because the statute is unambiguous, we note that the legislative history also supports our interpretation.”12026-10-23
Courts do not add exceptions the Legislature did not write.
“That exception is limited to contracts “otherwise enforceable under the [FAA].””22026-10-22
Leave risk judgments in public infrastructure to officials rather than juries.
“Design immunity, when it applies, reserves such decisions to public officials, not the courts.”62026-09-24
Decide no more than the case requires.
“We limit our recitation of the facts to those necessary to provide context for the narrow issue we are deciding in this appeal.”102025-04-16
“For the sake of clarity, we note that we say nothing about the scope of FAA preemption.”22026-10-22
Notable rhetoric
Brief, flat rebuttals of opposing arguments: 'This argument misses the point.' (S1).
Candid about statutory design: S2 calls the savings clause an 'odd feature' and says the Legislature's anti-preemption aim 'did not ultimately succeed in persuading the federal courts.'
S2 dismisses contrary federal trial-court rulings because they 'do not meaningfully engage with the issue we face.'
S3 concedes the hard part of its holding: 'While we do not think a jury is incapable of answering such questions, asking a jury to do so implicates interference with significant infrastructure planning decisions made by governments.'
S4 rests on the absence of contrary authority: 'We are aware of no California case or statute that has applied a ban on enforcing an “ordinance, rule, policy, program, or regulation” to an enforcement of state law enacted by the Legislature.'
Limits: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; most decisions are unpublished, and opinions he joined but did not write are excluded. Four opinions, three from his first weeks as a justice and one written by assignment from the trial bench, are a thin basis. Opinions are panel products. Nothing shows his approach to criminal law or constitutional-rights claims.
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.
Blogger Daniel Faigin recommends Retain (Yes) for Daum, relaying a 'Google AI' summary: no misconduct; two public oppositions (an attorney and a litigant) filed at his August 2026 confirmation, which the commission found insufficient; and his media/entertainment litigation background.
Conclusion: Retain (Yes).
Two formal oppositions were submitted at his confirmation hearing; confirmation was unanimous.
Says his corporate/media background (e.g., Paramount, Viacom) may draw scrutiny from consumer and labor advocates.
Facts, claims & caveats
Recommendation
Retain
Confirmed
August 2026, unanimous
The blog says corporate-side backgrounds draw 'philosophical scrutiny' from consumer and labor advocates.
Limits: Content attributed to 'Google AI' without primary sources; the client names and oppositions are not corroborated elsewhere in our sources.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
LAist explainer on Court of Appeal retention races; its Second District roster lists Nicholas Daum with a 2025 State Bar evaluation rating of "Exceptionally well qualified" and appointment by Gov. Newsom. No individual discussion.
LAist lists the State Bar (JNE) evaluation rating (2025) as "Exceptionally well qualified".
Retention questions are yes/no; per a state analysis LAist cites, no California appellate justice has lost a retention election since the system began in the 1930s.
Appellate justices sit on three-member panels reviewing lower-court decisions; they do not retry facts.
Facts, claims & caveats
State Bar evaluation rating (2025)
Exceptionally well qualified
Appointed by
Gov. Gavin Newsom
Bill Raftery of the National Center for State Courts says retention elections were meant as voters' chance to remove someone "bad at their job."
Limits: General explainer; one-line entry per justice, no analysis of rulings. The rating is as LAist reports it; the underlying JNE report is not in our sources.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Secretary of Stateofficial analysisRecord
Official certified list of judicial contests for Nov. 3, 2026; confirms Associate Justice Nicholas Daum (Division Four) is on the Second District retention ballot.
Ballot question: "Shall Associate Justice NICHOLAS DAUM be elected to the office for the term provided by law?"
Facts, claims & caveats
Office
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four
Contest type
Retention (yes/no)
Limits: A ballot listing only; says nothing about the justice's record or qualifications.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Conservative group Reform California's LA County slate recommends DO NOT RETAIN for Nicholas Daum, as it does for nearly every Second District justice (retain only Chavez, Rothschild, Yegan). No reasons are given for any justice.
Recommendation: Nicholas Daum — DO NOT RETAIN.
Same recommendation for all but three of the listed Second District justices.
Facts, claims & caveats
Recommendation
Do not retain
Reform California recommends voters not retain this justice.
Limits: A partisan slate card with no stated rationale specific to this justice.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-28.
California Secretary of Stateofficial analysisNeutral
Secretary of State voter-guide index of Second District justices on the ballot; lists Nicholas Daum under Division Four and links to court biographies. Contains no evaluation.
Lists Nicholas Daum among the Division Four justices on the ballot.
Facts, claims & caveats
Division
Division Four
Limits: Navigation page; no substantive information beyond the listing.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Democratic Socialists of America, Los AngelesendorsementSupports
DSA-LA's guide groups Daum with five other former corporate-law partners (media and entertainment litigation) and says voters "could vote no" for that reason, while noting a variety of expertise on the appellate court is important.
DSA-LA lists Daum among justices who "were all partners in corporate law."
It hedges that varied expertise is important for the court's ability to decide higher-level cases.
Facts, claims & caveats
Basis
Pre-appointment career in corporate/media litigation
DSA-LA suggests a corporate-law background could be a reason to vote no.
Limits: Based solely on pre-appointment career; does not cite any ruling by Daum.
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 Justice Nicholas Daum's published opinions, Second District, Division 4, Oct 2024 to Oct 2026, compiled from the court's listings with authorship read from signature blocks. He authored 4 published opinions and wrote no separate opinions (dissents or concurrences). All 4 are civil cases; three involve local governments (Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, a city-attorney nuisance action) and one an employment arbitration dispute.
4 authored published opinions; 0 dissents or concurrences.
Three of the four were filed Sept 24 to Oct 23, 2026; the fourth (Soto) is from April 2025.
Case mix: ADU permit delay (Shi), public-entity design immunity (Tansavatdi), employment arbitration (Molina), public nuisance enforcement (Soto). No criminal cases.
Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished, and opinions he joined but did not write are not listed.
Facts, claims & caveats
Authored published opinions
4
Separate opinions
0
Shi v. City of Palos Verdes Estates
B350195, 2026-10-23, author
Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc.
B350252, 2026-10-22, author
Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes
B343512, 2026-09-24, author
People ex rel. Soto v. Group IX BP Properties
B337891, 2025-04-16, author
Limits: Published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished. Lists only opinions he signed, not those he joined. Counts do not show outcomes or votes.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate Districtcourt opinionRecord
Published opinion by Daum reversing dismissal of a homeowner's damages suit alleging Palos Verdes Estates delayed his ADU permit over three years; ADU applicants are the intended beneficiaries of the ministerial-approval duty in Gov. Code § 66317.
"Allowing permit applicants to receive the benefit of ministerial approval ... is not 'incidental' to section 66317. It is the point of section 66317."
Found the text unambiguous but discussed legislative history "for the sake of clarifying."
Shi alleged damages exceeding $1 million; the case returns to the trial court.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
Shi v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, B350195
Disposition
Reversed
Author
Daum, J.
Limits: A pleading-stage ruling; the allegations are assumed true and liability is not decided.
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 Appellate Districtcourt opinionRecord
Published opinion by Daum affirming denial of an employer's motion to compel arbitration: when the FAA does not apply, an arbitration agreement required as a condition of employment in violation of Labor Code § 432.6 is unenforceable.
Held subdivision (f)'s enforceability exception covers only agreements "otherwise enforceable under the [FAA]."
Found the employer's own evidence showed a violation: an employee "free to accept the Arbitration Agreement, attempt to negotiate out of it or look for other employment" was required to arbitrate.
Declined to follow federal district-court rulings that relied on Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
Molina v. Triumph Residential Services, Inc., B350252
Disposition
Affirmed
Author
Daum, J.
Limits: Turns on a concession that the FAA did not apply; expressly says nothing about FAA preemption.
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 Appellate Districtcourt opinionRecord
Published opinion by Daum affirming summary judgment for Rancho Palos Verdes in a cyclist's wrongful-death case, answering the question Tansavatdi I left open: design immunity can cover claims that warnings in an approved design were inadequate.
Holding: where some warning was provided as part of a reasonable approved design, claims that different or additional warnings were needed may be barred by design immunity.
Adopted "a more limited rule than urged by either of the parties"; distinguished cases with no warning at all.
Reasoned that juries deciding the best form of a warning would intrude on infrastructure decisions reserved to public officials.
Also affirmed the City's expert-fee award under a valid § 998 offer.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, B343512
Disposition
Affirmed
Author
Daum, J.
Limits: One government-immunity case; the Supreme Court may revisit the issue.
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 4court opinionRecord
Opinion by Daum, then a Superior Court judge sitting by assignment (Zukin, Collins concurring), affirming a modified preliminary injunction in a Los Angeles City Attorney gang-nuisance case against a North Hollywood apartment complex. Gov. Code section 53165.1 (AB 1418), which bars local 'crime-free housing' rules, does not reach a state Public Nuisance Law action, even one built on police reports.
Three independent grounds: the PNL is state law, not an 'ordinance, rule, policy, program, or regulation'; a city attorney suing for the People is not a 'local government'; and the injunction targets property mismanagement, not penalties 'solely as a consequence of contact with a law enforcement agency.'
Finds the statute unambiguous but reviews AB 1418's history as confirmation: its target was crime-free housing ordinances and programs.
The City had already agreed to drop background-check and eviction terms from the injunction in light of the new law.
Filed unpublished March 20, 2025; certified for publication April 16, 2025.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
People ex rel. Feldstein Soto v. Group IX BP Properties, LP, B337891
Outcome
Order affirmed
Property
116-unit Vanowen Apartments, North Hollywood
Panel
Daum, J. (Superior Court judge by assignment, author); Zukin, Acting P. J.; Collins, J.
The court states it is 'very unlikely that the Legislature intended to apply section 53165.1 to the enforcement of statewide law.'
According to the opinion, AB 1418's author said the bill was not intended to preclude enforcement of statewide law.
Limits: Reviews a preliminary injunction on a pure question of law; nuisance liability itself is not decided. Written while Daum sat by assignment from the Superior Court.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Courts newsroom item (reposting MetNews): the Commission on Judicial Appointments confirmed Daum's elevation from LA Superior Court to the Second District.
Confirmed the Friday before Aug. 10, 2026, alongside Tari Cody's elevation to presiding justice.
Facts, claims & caveats
Limits: Brief notice; no hearing details.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Court biography: Associate Justice, Division Four, confirmed August 2026; LA Superior Court judge (criminal in San Fernando, then civil at Stanley Mosk); 19 years in private practice, mostly as a Kendall Brill & Kelly partner in media and entertainment litigation with an appellate practice.
JNE Commission rated him "exceptionally well qualified," its highest rating.
Pro bono work focused on voting rights.
Yale Law (Notes Editor, Yale Law Journal); master's in Modern European History from UC Berkeley; taught at Loyola Law School; Western Justice Center board president.
Facts, claims & caveats
Court
Second District, Division Four
JNE rating
Exceptionally well qualified
Limits: Self-presented official biography.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.