Justice Anne Richardson

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 Anne Richardson as an Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and rated "Exceptionally well qualified" by the State Bar (2024).

• State Bar evaluation rating for Anne Richardson: Exceptionally well qualified (2024).
• 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 ANNE RICHARDSON be elected to the office for the term provided by law?" under the Second District, Division Two. This confirms the justice is on the ballot.

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

The Secretary of State's official 2026 voter guide lists Anne Richardson as an Associate Justice of the Second District, Division Two, 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 Anne Richardson, Associate Justice, Division Two, Second District.
• Second District sits in Los Angeles (Divisions 1-5, 7, 8) and Ventura (Division 6).

Eugene Volokh lists takeaways from Roe v. Smith, which he calls only the third binding California precedent expressly addressing pseudonymity. He quotes its holdings that defamation plaintiffs are generally ill suited to proceed under pseudonyms, that reputational or employment fears do not suffice, and that courts must make express findings. He discloses he briefed and argued the case for the winning First Amendment Coalition.

• Quotes the court: litigating by pseudonym should be a "limited and rare exception."
• Notes the court treated pre-DFEH cases that allowed pseudonyms without discussion as non-authority, and Title IX precedents as generally not relevant to suits between private individuals.
• Notes holdings that a party seeking a pseudonym should give real names under seal for recusal checks, and that such orders are immediately appealable.

A California Lawyers Association Trusts and Estates Section case note (by Hengameh Kishani) on Conservatorship of Anne S. (B333052, filed July 10, 2025): being a proposed conservatee's neighbor does not confer standing to petition, and the petition was frivolous enough to justify sanctions. It does not name the author justice.

• Headnote: standing to petition for conservatorship is limited to people with a genuine connection to or legal interest in the conservatee.
• Recounts the withdrawn joint petition, the family settlement and the $5,577 sanctions.

Census of Richardson's published opinions for Division Two from October 2024 to October 2026: 5 authored majority opinions and 2 concurrences, no dissents.

• Authored: Luna v. Top Dawg (anti-SLAPP), People v. Miranda (Second Amendment), Roe v. Smith (pseudonymity), Conservatorship of Anne S., Hardy v. Forest River.
• Concurrences: People v. Cortez (2026) and People v. Bustillos (2026), both criminal sentencing cases.
• Mix of civil and criminal; both separate opinions narrow or decline to join parts of the majority.

Opinion by Richardson, J. (Chavez, Acting P.J., Goorvitch, J.). Reversed denial of an anti-SLAPP motion: Top Dawg Entertainment's press release naming two women who had sued under unauthorized pseudonyms was protected speech, and the fair report privilege defeats their doxing claim because they never asked the court for leave to proceed anonymously.

• Restates that plaintiffs have no right to anonymity absent a statute or a court order under the overriding-interest test (citing her own Roe v. Smith).
• Press release about a lawsuit is protected activity under section 425.16(e)(2) and (e)(4); courts should not hunt for a claim's 'gravamen' at step one.
• Fair report privilege covers accurate reports about a proceeding, even of facts not yet in the record; the 'shakedown' language is not what was sued on.
• Rejects the trial court's sua sponte reliance on Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6, which allows disclosing 'identity of the persons involved.'

Majority by Chavez, Acting P.J., affirming denial of a juvenile offender's resentencing petition and rejecting the Heard line on equal protection. Richardson concurred separately: the 46-years-to-life sentence is not functional life without parole, so the equal protection question need not and should not be reached.

• Richardson joins parts II.A and II.B (sentence too short; section 3051 parole eligibility) but not part II.C.
• Cites the rule that a challenger who cannot show a law unconstitutional as applied to him loses.
• Majority: Heard misallocated the rational-basis burden; offers possible rational bases for limiting section 1170(d)(1) to explicit LWOP.
• Notes the question is pending in the Supreme Court (Munoz and others).

Opinion by Richardson, J. (Chavez, Acting P.J., Goorvitch, J.). Upheld California's ban on carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (Penal Code 21310) against a facial Second Amendment challenge under Bruen and Rahimi, and held a vindictive-sentencing claim forfeited for lack of objection.

• Assumes the text covers carrying a concealed 14-inch knife, then finds the ban 'robustly supported' by 19th-century concealed-carry laws.
• No 'historical twin' needed; general concealed-weapon laws count, not just knife laws.
• Disclaims any requirement that modern laws mirror history as closely as this one.
• Rejects reliance on a Massachusetts switchblade case and a reading of Heller as repudiating Aymette.

Opinion by Gilbert, J. (retired, sitting by assignment), joined by Lui, P.J., reversing an agreed upper-term sentence under People v. Mitchell and Senate Bill 567. In an "Additional Thoughts" section the majority objected that a defendant who absconded profits from his own wrong. Richardson wrote a short concurrence joining the result but not those concerns: the Estrada retroactivity presumption applies to all nonfinal cases "regardless of why they are not final," and changing that is for the Legislature.

• Richardson concurrence: SB 567 is ameliorative and the case was not final, so Estrada applies.
• Notes the Estrada majority rejected the dissent's concern that defendants would seek delay.
• Points out the Legislature can specify a different retroactivity rule.
• Majority (Gilbert): the result violates the maxim that no one may take advantage of his own wrong, and the Legislature may wish to correct it.

Opinion by Richardson, J. (Lui, P.J., Chavez, J.). Reversed an order letting adult defamation plaintiffs, accused of high-school sexual misconduct, proceed under pseudonyms: under the overriding-interest test, conclusory fear that employers will learn of the case is ordinary reputational harm that does not outweigh public access.

• Pseudonymity orders are appealable collateral orders; trial courts must apply the NBC Subsidiary / rule 2.550(d) test, with federal factors as persuasive.
• Agrees the allegations are 'highly sensitive and private,' the more so because the parties were minors, but finds no evidence of serious harm.
• Reputational harm 'would swallow the rule' in defamation cases; such plaintiffs are 'generally ill suited' to anonymity.
• The public is 'a third stakeholder' even when all parties agree to pseudonyms; asks for real names under seal for recusal checks.

Opinion by Richardson, J. (Lui, P.J., and Chavez, J., concurring). Reversed an order letting adult defamation plaintiffs, accused of high-school sexual misconduct, proceed under pseudonyms. Applying the overriding-interest test for sealing, it held fear that future employers would learn of the allegations is reputational harm that does not outweigh the public's right of access.

• Holds orders allowing pseudonyms are appealable collateral orders and reviewed independently on a no-evidence record.
• Adopts the NBC Subsidiary / rule 2.550(d) overriding-interest test and treats federal pseudonymity factors as persuasive.
• Agrees the allegations are highly sensitive, especially because the parties were minors, but finds no evidence of serious harm.
• Does not require evidence in every case, but says the motion here rested on conclusory allegations.
• Takes no position on the defendants' own pseudonymity, which was not appealed.

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

Opinion by Richardson, J. (Lui, P.J., and Chavez, J., concurring). Affirmed dismissal of a conservatorship petition and $5,577 in sanctions: a neighbor who had chatted once with the proposed conservatee is neither an "interested person" nor a "friend" with standing under Probate Code section 1820, and maintaining the petition was legally frivolous.

• Applies the Probate Code's statutory definition of "interested person" (sections 48, 1424) and case law tying it to financial interest.
• Defines "friend" by ordinary meaning using dictionaries: a mutual relationship with some intimacy or closeness.
• Declines the petitioner's "idiosyncratic" six-factor test and leaves his policy arguments to the Legislature.
• Expressly reserves cases where "friend" might be ambiguous.
• Upholds sanctions as within the trial court's discretion.

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

• Richardson fills the vacancy created by Justice Brian Hoffstadt's elevation to presiding justice of Division Five; LA Superior Court judge since 2018; directing attorney at Public Counsel 2014-2018; partner (1998-2014) and associate (1993-1998) at Hadsell, Stormer, Richardson and Renick; J.D., Stanford.
• Confirmed by unanimous vote of Chief Justice Guerrero, Attorney General Bonta and Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert.

Official court biography. Richardson, on Division Two since November 2024, spent 24 years in private practice at Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick litigating in state and federal trial and appellate courts. She then directed complex consumer litigation at Public Counsel for four years and served six years on the LA Superior Court (family law, then civil), including as a pro tem justice in Division Three.

• Rated "exceptionally well qualified" by the JNE Commission; unanimously confirmed.
• Appointed to the Superior Court by Gov. Brown in October 2018.
• Clerked for U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer.
• B.A. Swarthmore (Philosophy); J.D. with Distinction, Stanford; Stanford Law Review editor.
• Taught at Loyola and UC Irvine law schools; two California Lawyer Attorney of the Year awards; Executive Board, California Judges Association.