judge12 sources, dated 2026-02-19 – 2026-10-14· last searched 2026-10-29
Associate Justice, Second District, Division Two
Overview
Synthesized 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session from 12 sources dated 2026-02-19 to 2026-10-14. Machine-written; numbers link to the sources below.
Goorvitch joined Division Two in 2026 after a decade as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge (from 2015); earlier he was a federal prosecutor and an SEC enforcement attorney 11,8. He was nominated Feb. 19, 2026 and confirmed unanimously May 22, 2026 8,7. LAist lists his 2025 State Bar rating as "Qualified" 3. His published record so far is two July 2026 civil opinions and no dissents or concurrences 9: one reinstated about $13 million in jury verdicts for two LAPD officers against the City 5, the other upheld family-court sanctions for delay 6. Reform California says do not retain; DSA-LA says voters "could vote no" because he was a prosecutor; the cahighways blog says retain 10,2,1.
Record
Census, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: 2 authored published opinions, 0 dissents or concurrences, both from July 2026. Published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished.9
Jul. 30, 2026, Glick v. City of Los Angeles: reversed a new-trial order that cut two officers' gender-discrimination awards to $250,000 and $125,000, reinstating the $8.6M and $4.5M verdicts; held the trial court had effectively capped emotional-distress damages and confused admissibility with credibility.5
Jul. 9, 2026, Marriage of Martinez & Camou: affirmed $20,000 in Family Code § 271 sanctions; held parties must invoke European Beverage promptly.6
Confirmed unanimously to Division Two on May 22, 2026; LA Superior Court judge 2015-2026.11,7
Stated positions
In his 2026 opinions: no fixed standard caps noneconomic damages, and expert testimony is not needed for emotional distress within jurors' common experience.5
Litigants have an affirmative duty to raise procedural rights in time to avoid delay and cost (2026).6
Praise & support
No ethics or disciplinary issues found; confirmed unanimously despite a litigant's opposition. The blog attributes its facts to 'Google AI.' — cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)2
Criticism & concerns
As a former federal prosecutor he may emphasize punishment and incarceration; DSA-LA says voters 'could vote no' while conceding a replacement would likely also be a prosecutor. — Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles1
Do not retain (no reason given; same call for nearly every Second District justice). — Reform California10
At confirmation, a litigant objected that in 2023 he struck a disqualification motion against himself rather than letting another judge rule, as relayed second-hand. — cahighways.org (Daniel Faigin)2
What we could not find
Only two published appellate opinions, both civil and unanimous; no criminal rulings, dissents, or concurrences, and no unpublished decisions reviewed.
No JNE evaluation report itself; the 'Qualified' rating comes only from LAist.
No primary record of the confirmation opposition or the 2017 case the blog mentions.
No interviews, questionnaires, or statements in his own words outside opinions.
Questions to consider
How has he ruled in criminal appeals, published or unpublished, since joining the court?
What did the confirmation-hearing record say about the 2023 disqualification dispute?
Do his trial-court rulings from 2015-2026 show the same deference to juries seen in Glick?
Analysis of their legal writing and words
Written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session from 2 primary texts5,6. 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. Goorvitch has only two published opinions in that window, both authored majorities and both from July 2026, so the sample is 2 texts (0 separate, 2 authored): a FEHA damages appeal against the City of Los Angeles (S1) and a family-law sanctions appeal (S2). No criminal cases, no dissents or concurrences, no unscripted speech, nothing from his trial-court years.
Standard-of-review driven and tied to precedent and the record. He defers to fact-finders: S1 reinstates jury damages and reverses a trial judge whose new-trial order rested on legal error (a de facto cap on emotional-distress damages, admissibility confused with credibility); S2 upholds a trial court's credibility-based sanctions finding. He enforces procedural duties on litigants (S2's holding that parties must timely invoke European Beverage). Two civil cases cannot show a broader judicial philosophy or a view on rights claims.
In their words: insufficient_evidence: the opinions contain no self-description.
Articulation: StrongConsistency: Not enough evidence
Articulation. Both opinions lead with the holding, state the standard of review, and answer each argument in turn. Economical and concrete: S1 uses the trial court's own summary to show its 'scant evidence' premise was "belied by the court’s own summary of the evidence"; S2 dismisses a side argument in a line ("Martinez is missing the forest for the trees") and still addresses it. Prepared judicial prose only.
Consistency. Two opinions three weeks apart in unrelated fields. They do not conflict and both defer to the fact-finder, but two texts cannot establish consistency over time.
Positions
Noneconomic damages: No fixed standard or cap; a jury's award stands unless it shows passion or prejudice.
“The court’s reasoning is incompatible with case law’s rejection of a “fixed standard to determine the amount of noneconomic damages.””52026-07-30
“We are unconvinced that the noneconomic damages awarded here shock the conscience and require reduction.”52026-07-30
Expert testimony for emotional distress: Not required when the distress described is within jurors' common experience.
“But expert testimony is not required where, as here, “[t]he emotional distress to which [a plaintiff] testifie[s] is not beyond the common experience of the jurors.””52026-07-30
Litigant duties in family court: Parties must raise procedural rights promptly or face sanctions for delay.
“We hold that parties have an affirmative obligation to invoke European Beverage in a timely manner as necessary to avoid undue delay and increased litigation costs in marital dissolution cases.”62026-07-09
Stated principles (2)
Keep questions of law separate from questions of weight and credibility.
“The trial court confused the admissibility of evidence with its credibility.”52026-07-30
Deter gamesmanship that adds cost and delay.
“The sanctions award is justified because Martinez failed to raise the European Beverage issue in a timely manner, after stipulating to bifurcation, for purposes of gamesmanship.”62026-07-09
Notable rhetoric
S1 reinstates verdicts of about $13.1 million against the City of Los Angeles, relying on precedent that juries are entrusted with "vast discretion" over damages.
S2 grounds a credibility point in court conditions it describes itself ("the heavy caseloads and frequency of judicial reassignments in the Los Angeles County Superior Court") rather than record evidence.
Limits: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; unpublished decisions and opinions he joined are not sampled. Two civil majorities from his first months on the court, both unanimous, so the text reflects the panel as well as the author. Nothing on criminal law, constitutional rights, dissenting practice, or his trial-court record.
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 Goorvitch, relaying a 'Google AI' summary: no ethics or disciplinary issues, a litigant's opposition at his 2026 confirmation, and his federal-prosecutor background.
Conclusion: Retain (Yes); "None of this is a reason for disqualification."
Relays that a litigant opposed his confirmation, alleging that in March 2023 he struck a disqualification motion against himself rather than letting another judge rule; the commission confirmed him unanimously.
Relays that a 2017 civil case with a terminally ill plaintiff and a parallel criminal case drew scrutiny of his handling.
Facts, claims & caveats
Recommendation
Retain
Confirmed
May 2026, unanimous
Per the blog's 'Google AI' summary, defense-oriented groups watch former federal prosecutors for "pro-prosecution" tendencies.
Limits: The author attributes the factual content to 'Google AI' and gives no primary sources; treat the specific incidents as unverified.
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 Steve Goorvitch with a 2025 State Bar evaluation rating of "Qualified" and appointment by Gov. Newsom. No individual discussion.
LAist lists the State Bar (JNE) evaluation rating (2025) as "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)
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 Steve Goorvitch (Division Two) is on the Second District retention ballot.
Ballot question: "Shall Associate Justice STEVE GOORVITCH be elected to the office for the term provided by law?"
Facts, claims & caveats
Office
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two
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 Steve Goorvitch, as it does for nearly every Second District justice (retain only Chavez, Rothschild, Yegan). No reasons are given for any justice.
Recommendation: Steve Goorvitch — 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 Steve Goorvitch under Division Two and links to court biographies. Contains no evaluation.
Lists Steve Goorvitch among the Division Two justices on the ballot.
Facts, claims & caveats
Division
Division Two
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 Goorvitch with three other former federal prosecutors and says voters "could vote no" on that basis, while conceding federal prosecution includes fraud and white-collar work and that a replacement would likely also be a prosecutor.
DSA-LA: "We generally oppose appointing prosecutors to judicial positions since they tend to emphasize punishment and incarceration."
It hedges: Newsom "would likely appoint prosecutors to replace them."
Facts, claims & caveats
Basis
Pre-appointment career as federal prosecutor
DSA-LA argues former prosecutors tend to emphasize punishment and incarceration.
Limits: Based solely on pre-appointment career; does not cite any ruling by Goorvitch.
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 Goorvitch's published Court of Appeal opinions, Oct. 2024 to Oct. 2026: two authored majority opinions, both civil and both from July 2026, and no dissents or concurrences.
2 authored opinions; 0 separate opinions.
Case mix: one employment-discrimination damages appeal against the City of Los Angeles, one family-law sanctions appeal.
Covers published opinions only; most appellate decisions are unpublished and are not counted.
Facts, claims & caveats
Authored published opinions
2
Separate opinions (dissents/concurrences)
0
Opinions listed
Glick v. Los Angeles, B334953 (2026-07-30); Marriage of Martinez & Camou, B345397 (2026-07-09)
Division
Second Appellate District, Division Two
The compilers state that authorship was read from each opinion's signature block.
Limits: Published opinions only, which are a small minority of an appellate justice's decisions; unpublished opinions and joined (non-authored) opinions are not counted. Both opinions date from his first months on the Court of Appeal, so two items cannot show a pattern.
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 Goorvitch reversing a new-trial order that cut two LAPD officers' gender-discrimination verdicts against the City from $8.6M and $4.5M to $250,000 and $125,000; the jury awards are reinstated.
Held the trial court effectively capped 'garden-variety' emotional-distress damages, contrary to the rule that there is no fixed standard for noneconomic damages.
Expert testimony is not required for emotional distress within jurors' common experience.
The trial court "confused the admissibility of evidence with its credibility" in zeroing Glick's $621,358 economic award.
Rejected the City's cross-appeal that the awards shock the conscience.
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
Glick v. City of Los Angeles, B334953
Disposition
New-trial order reversed; judgment reinstated
Damages
$8,621,358 (Glick); $4.5M (Garcia)
Author
Goorvitch, J.
Limits: A single FEHA damages appeal; says nothing about criminal or other areas.
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 Goorvitch (Chavez, Richardson concurring) affirming $20,000 in Family Code § 271 sanctions against a spouse who stipulated to a bifurcated trial and then waited nearly eight months to invoke European Beverage.
Holding: parties "have an affirmative obligation to invoke European Beverage in a timely manner as necessary to avoid undue delay and increased litigation costs in marital dissolution cases."
Upheld the trial court's finding of "gamesmanship" and its refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Rejected the argument that long-cause matters must be transferred: "Martinez is missing the forest for the trees."
Facts, claims & caveats
Case
In re Marriage of Martinez & Camou, B345397
Disposition
Affirmed
Sanction
$20,000
Author
Goorvitch, J.
Limits: One unopposed family-law appeal (no respondent appearance); deferential abuse-of-discretion review.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Judicial Council release: the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Goorvitch to Division Two on May 22, 2026, with a career summary.
Confirmation was by unanimous vote of Chief Justice Guerrero, AG Bonta and Presiding Justice Rothschild.
Facts, claims & caveats
Vote
Unanimous, 3-0
Limits: Does not describe the hearing testimony or any opposition.
Date stated in the document. Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.
Governor's release announcing Goorvitch's nomination to Division Two, filling Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst's seat; lists his career and party (Democrat).
LA Superior Court judge since 2015; Assistant U.S. Attorney 2007-2015; O'Melveny counsel 2003-2007; SEC staff attorney 1998-2001.
Facts, claims & caveats
Vacancy
Retirement of Justice Judith T. Ashmann-Gerst
Party
Democrat
Limits: Biographical announcement only.
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 Two, since 2026; former SEC enforcement attorney, federal law clerk, O'Melveny & Myers lawyer, federal prosecutor (C.D. Cal.), and LA Superior Court judge from 2015.
Appointed to LA Superior Court by Gov. Brown on Nov. 13, 2015; presided over civil and criminal cases.
Appointed to the Court of Appeal Feb. 19, 2026; unanimously confirmed May 22, 2026.
UC San Diego and UC Berkeley law; was a high school teacher before law school.
Facts, claims & caveats
Court
Second District, Division Two
Prior bench
LA Superior Court, 2015-2026
Limits: Self-presented official biography; no evaluation of his work.
Summary written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session. Link checked 2026-10-29.