Justice Michelle C. Kim

LAist's guide to the LA and Orange County appellate retention races explains what Court of Appeal justices do and lists each candidate with a State Bar evaluation rating. It lists Michelle C. Kim as an Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and rated "Exceptionally well qualified" by the State Bar (2022).

• State Bar evaluation rating for Michelle C. Kim: Exceptionally well qualified (2022).
• Appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
• Retention votes are yes/no; justices serve 12-year terms, and new justices may first serve the remainder of a predecessor's term.
• Voters elect appellate justices by district, not division.

The Secretary of State's list of judicial ballot questions for the Nov. 3, 2026 election includes "Shall Associate Justice MICHELLE C. KIM be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" under the Second District, Division One. This confirms the justice is on the ballot.

• Michelle C. Kim appears as a yes/no retention question for Associate Justice, Second District, Division One.
• Second District voters: Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura counties.

The Secretary of State's official 2026 voter guide lists Michelle C. Kim as an Associate Justice of the Second District, Division One, among the 18 Second District justices on the retention ballot. The page is a roster only; it links to court biographies and gives no qualifications or evaluations.

• Lists Michelle C. Kim, Associate Justice, Division One, Second District.
• Second District sits in Los Angeles (Divisions 1-5, 7, 8) and Ventura (Division 6).

Best Best & Krieger, a firm that advises public agencies, summarizes Dreher v. LADWP (Dec. 8, 2025) as good news for tiered water rates: the court upheld LADWP's budget-based tiers, rejected Patz v. City of San Diego, and required payment under protest for refunds. It does not name the opinion's author.

• Holdings as BBK describes them: supply costs may be allocated to higher tiers despite commingling; breakpoints need no cost basis; peaking costs may go to upper tiers; refunds are not presumed.
• BBK notes the decision "vocally diverges" from Patz and may lead to Supreme Court review.

Census of Kim's published opinions for Division One from October 2024 to October 2026: 7 authored majority opinions and no dissents or concurrences.

• All 7 are civil or family/juvenile matters; none is a criminal appeal.
• Several involve public entities: LADWP (Dreher), LAUSD (O.B.), CSU (Krug), Los Angeles County (Lugo).
• Others: FEHA alter-ego liability (Villasenor), the five-year trial deadline (Wilson), a juvenile case (In re A.O.).

Opinion by Kim, J. (Rothschild, P.J., Weingart, J.). Held FEHA does not displace the common-law presumption that a corporation is separate from its owner, so a harassment plaintiff who won against two restaurant companies could not collect from their sole owner without rebutting that presumption. Affirmed.

• Starts from the strong presumption that statutes do not abrogate the common law (McMillin, Presbyterian Camp).
• Finds FEHA's purpose clause and liberal-construction rule do not 'clearly and unequivocally' alter alter-ego doctrine; FEHA says nothing about alter ego.
• Distinguishes the fee-asymmetry cases (Williams, Arave, Pollock, Ramirez): they construed FEHA's express fee provision and 'are not authority for propositions not considered.'
• Notes the plaintiff did not challenge the finding that her evidence failed to rebut the presumption, and reached her new legal argument as a pure question of law.

Opinion by Kim, J. (Bendix, Acting P.J., Weingart, J.). Reversed a five-year-rule dismissal of a personal-injury suit: following Stueve v. Nemer, a jury case is 'brought to trial' when a panel assembles for voir dire and takes the section 232(a) oath, even if the parties have not begun questioning.

• Holds the action was brought to trial on March 16, 2023, four days before the deadline.
• Reads Kadota, Hartman and Hilliard as not deciding the narrower timing question, since questioning began the same day in each.
• Cites the Trial Jury Selection and Management Act's definitions and the Standards of Judicial Administration (hardship questioning is part of voir dire).
• Does not reach tolling or the plaintiff's due process objection to a one-night opposition deadline.

Opinion by Kim, J. (Weingart, Acting P.J., Adams, J.). Upheld LADWP's tiered residential water rates under Proposition 218's proportionality rule and held refunds of the invalid low-income subsidy charge required payment under protest (Health & Safety Code 5472). Expressly disagreed with the divided Fourth District decision in Patz v. City of San Diego.

• 'The Constitution requires proportionality, not exactness': no duty to trace each water source to each parcel.
• Adopts the Capistrano approach and the Patz dissent: higher tiers may bear the incremental cost of more expensive supply; tier breakpoints need no cost justification if rates do not exceed costs.
• Plain text of section 5471 covers water charges; code headings cannot create ambiguity.
• Finds no prejudice from excluding expert testimony absent any showing of what an expert would say.

Opinion by Kim, J. (Weingart, Acting P.J., concurring). Upheld LADWP's four-tier residential water rates under Proposition 218's proportionality rule and held ratepayers must pay under protest (Health & Safety Code § 5472) to get refunds. It expressly disagreed with the Fourth District's divided Patz v. City of San Diego decision. The header notes the Supreme Court later granted review.

• Proposition 218 requires rates proportional to the cost of service, "not exactness"; agencies need not trace water from source to parcel.
• Adopts the Capistrano approach and the Patz dissent: higher tiers may bear the incremental cost of more expensive supply.
• Tier breakpoints need no cost-based justification so long as rates within tiers do not exceed costs.
• Plain-language reading of § 5471 brings water charges under the pay-under-protest rule, rejecting the Drehers' reliance on headings and legislative history.
• Leaves in place the trial court's ruling that the embedded low-income subsidy was unconstitutional; no refund without protest.

Long document: only the first 30,000 characters were summarized.

Opinion by Kim, J. (Bendix, Acting P.J., Weingart, J.). Reversed an order denying as untimely a self-represented father's request to set aside a 2015 voluntary declaration of paternity. Deferring to the Judicial Council's form interpretation, it held pre-2020 declarations remain subject to the old deadline: a reasonable time, up to six months, after the first support order.

• Applies Family Code section 4(e): validity of an order made before a law change is governed by old law; a filed declaration is equivalent to a judgment.
• Gives the Judicial Council's interpretation in forms FL-280/FL-281 'great weight' (Sara M.) and finds it not clearly erroneous.
• Rejects the County's legislative-intent (federal funding) argument.
• Urges the Judicial Council to revise form FL-281, which omits the 'reasonable time' and 'initial order' limits; expresses no view on the fraud claim.

Opinion by Kim, J. (Rothschild, P.J., and Weingart, J., concurring), certified for publication Aug. 27, 2025. Reversing the trial court, it held AB 218's revival of lapsed childhood sexual assault claims against public entities does not violate the constitutional gift clause, because the school district was already substantively liable; AB 218 only removed the claim-presentation barrier.

• Frames the test as whether the Legislature created new substantive liability or removed a procedural obstacle, following the First District's West Contra Costa decision.
• Relies on Chapman v. State (1894): a statute giving a new remedy for a pre-existing liability is not a gift.
• Holds claim presentation is an element a plaintiff must plead, not an element of the entity's substantive liability.
• Does not reach the public-purpose argument.

Opinion by Kim, J. (Bendix, Acting P.J., and Weingart, J., concurring), on remand from the Supreme Court. Applying Stone v. Alameda Health System, the court held Labor Code section 2802's expense-reimbursement duty does not reach CSU, so a professor who bought home-office equipment for pandemic remote teaching cannot recover from CSU. Affirmed.

• Reads section 2802's undefined "employer" as ambiguous, then resolves it from statutory structure and history rather than policy.
• Finds "positive indicia" of intent to exclude public employers: the Legislature expressly covered public employers elsewhere, never amended section 2802 to do so, and did so only for public-hospital training costs.
• Decides without reaching the sovereign-powers maxim.
• Rejects reliance on wage orders and Labor Commissioner (DLSE) letters by both sides.

Judicial Council news release announcing that the Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously confirmed Michelle C. Kim to the Second District Court of Appeal on Nov. 25, 2024, with short biographies of the three appointees (Hoffstadt, Kim, Richardson).

• Kim fills the seat vacated by retiring Justice Victoria D. Chaney; LA Superior Court judge since 2018; deputy alternate public defender 2005-2018 and deputy public defender 2003-2005; J.D., UCLA.
• Confirmed by unanimous vote of Chief Justice Guerrero, Attorney General Bonta and Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert.

Official court biography. Kim, on Division One since 2024, was a Los Angeles County deputy public defender and deputy alternate public defender who tried felony jury trials for indigent clients, then an LA Superior Court judge (criminal limited-jurisdiction supervision; unlimited civil calendars) appointed by Gov. Brown.

• Nominated by Gov. Newsom; rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation; unanimously confirmed.
• Former Head Deputy at the LA County Alternate Public Defender's Office.
• Superior Court: Assistant Supervising Judge (criminal, limited jurisdiction), site judge, unlimited civil calendars at Spring Street and Stanley Mosk.
• B.A. Stanford (American Studies); J.D. UCLA.
• Vice Chair, LA Judicial Selection Advisory Committee; 2025 Judicial Service Award, Southern California Chinese Lawyers Association.