Analysis of their legal writing and words
Written 2026-10-29 in an operator-run Claude session from 5 primary texts5,7,8,9,15. An evaluative machine reading: check each point against its quoted evidence.
Coverage: Systematic sample by a fixed rule: from the court's published-opinion listings (Oct 2024 to Oct 2026), his separate opinions newest first (one exists), then his most recent authored opinions, five texts in all, counted by case. Five cases: Leviss v. Madix (S1, anti-SLAPP, Aug 2026, with its modification order; over a Wiley dissent), In re Miguel J. (S2, dependency jurisdiction, on rehearing, Aug 2026; Wiley concurs in result), Division of Occupational Safety & Health v. Uber Technologies (S3, agency subpoena, June 2026; unanimous), Diaz v. Thor Motor Coach (S4, consumer forum clause, Feb 2026; over a Wiley dissent), and the Merrick v. Lau concurrence (S5, Dec 2024). S5 is a joint concurrence co-signed by Stratton, P. J., and Viramontes, written in Stratton's first person; it shows views he co-signed, not his own prose. Colleagues' dissents and concurrences in S1, S2 and S4 were not treated as his words. Prepared written opinions only; nothing from 2025; no criminal case; no speeches, interviews or questionnaires.
Conventional and precedent-driven. He frames each question with the Supreme Court's governing test: FilmOn in S1, R.T. and N.R. in S2, Brovelli in S3, Ramirez and Armendariz in S4. He starts from statutory text and dictionary meaning, then checks legislative history and purpose (S2). He surveys conflicting appellate decisions before choosing among them; in S4 he joins Lathrop and Hardy over Kim. He declines to add terms the Legislature did not write, a mental-state requirement in S2 and a time limit on investigations in S3, and defers to trial courts on credibility (S2). He reads worker- and consumer-protection statutes broadly: the Labor Code 'to favor the protection of employees' (S3) and unwaivable Song-Beverly rights over contract terms (S4). He protects privacy in intimate material even for public figures, and limits the anti-SLAPP inquiry to the conduct actually sued on (S1). Results favored the plaintiff (S1), the child-welfare agency (S2), the state safety agency, while trimming its overbroad requests (S3), and the consumer (S4); Wiley contests S1 and S4 and concurs only in S2's result. The co-signed S5 concurrence condemns a trial judge's ethnic and gender remark as a breach of judicial ethics.
In their words: insufficient_evidence: his own opinions contain no self-description. The co-signed S5 concurrence speaks of judges' duties generally ("being mindful of the stereotypes we all carry (and their triggers) is part of our job as judges"), in Stratton's first person.
Articulation: StrongConsistency: Adequate
Articulation. Prepared texts only. The opinions are carefully organized and precise. Each states the question, lays out the governing test, surveys the authorities, applies them to the record and answers the losing side's arguments. S4 sets out Lathrop, Hardy and Kim in turn before choosing among them. S1 responds directly to the dissent's damages point. S2 uses dictionaries, Supreme Court guidance, legislative history and case law in sequence. S3 takes Uber's objections one by one under numbered headings and ties the remand to specific subpoena definitions ('DRIVER(S)', 'USER(S)'). The prose is formal and citation-heavy, without flourish, and long passages restate other courts' reasoning (S2, S4), clear to lawyers but slower for lay readers.
Consistency. Across four authored cases (Feb to Aug 2026) his method is steady: Supreme Court frameworks, text then history, refusal to add statutory terms (S2, S3), and narrow holdings that say what is not decided (S1, S3). Results do not run toward one kind of party. The window is six months for authored work plus one 2024 co-signed concurrence, so consistency over time cannot be judged. No shifts are observable.
Positions
Anti-SLAPP: public figures and private sexual material: A person's public-figure status does not make secretly recorded intimate videos a matter of public interest. The anti-SLAPP inquiry looks at the conduct sued on, not the damages that flow from it.
“However, Leviss’s status as a person in the public eye does not mean that every aspect of her personal life was itself a matter of public concern.”52026-08-18
“As in Michaels, the fact that Leviss and Sandoval were romantically involved may have been an issue of legitimate public interest, but the secretly recorded videos of their sexual activity were not.”52026-08-18
Dependency jurisdiction from domestic violence: Section 300(a) reaches a parent's intentional violence against the other parent in the child's presence when the child is put at risk of serious physical harm. No added mental state toward the child is required unless the Legislature adds one.
“It is thus reasonable to infer that the plain meaning of the term “nonaccidentally” is “intentionally.””72026-08-03
“Unless and until the Legislature sees fit to amend section 300, subdivision (a), to provide that the parent’s mental state must have at least been reckless with respect to the injury to the child, we decline to read such a requirement into the statute.”72026-08-03
Workplace-safety agency subpoenas (app-based drivers): Cal/OSHA may subpoena records to decide whether a deceased delivery driver was an employee or a Proposition 22 independent contractor, without first winning a declaratory judgment; its subpoena power is not limited to site inspections and is not cut off by the citation deadline. But requests not shown to be relevant, such as customers' records, must be reconsidered.
“OSHA was not required to first obtain a declaratory judgment finding Park to be an employee before it could undertake an investigation and issue a subpoena to Uber.”82026-06-18
“We do not believe the statutory language should be interpreted in a manner that gives employers the ability to thwart OSHA’s enforcement and investigatory responsibilities.”82026-06-18
“There is inadequate discussion explaining how records related to users or customers of Uber’s digital platforms are relevant to determining Park’s status as an independent contractor”82026-06-18
Out-of-state forum clauses in consumer warranties: A forum clause tied to a warranty that waived unwaivable Song-Beverly rights is unenforceable. A manufacturer's later offer to stipulate to California law does not cure it, and severance would not serve justice.
“We agree with the reasoning in Lathrop and Hardy and apply it here.”92026-02-13
“But that inconvenience does not relieve Thor of its obligation to comply with California’s consumer-protection laws if it wishes to do business in this state”92026-02-13
Judicial conduct and bias (co-signed concurrence): Co-signed a concurrence holding that a trial judge's remark about a litigant's ethnicity and gender breached the judicial ethics canons, even though it did not affect the ruling.
“Demeaning any litigant, as the court did here, is categorically unacceptable.”152024-12-17
Stated principles (4)
Follow the Supreme Court's governing framework and evaluate contracts as written at formation.
“It is well-settled that we must evaluate a contract for unconscionability at the time it was written”92026-02-13
Do not add limits or requirements the Legislature did not write.
“Had the Legislature intended to impose a time limit on OSHA’s investigatory powers or enforcement authority, it would have said so clearly and explicitly.”82026-06-18
Defer to the trial court on credibility.
“As a reviewing court, “ ‘ “[w]e do not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses or resolve evidentiary conflicts.” ’ ””72026-08-03
Decide only the question presented.
“For purposes of this appeal, we need not decide whether the conduct at issue was illegal as a matter of law.”52026-08-18
Notable rhetoric
- Takes care to say what the court does not decide. S1 expresses "no opinion about the veracity of the allegations" and leaves open that Madix's public comments about the videos could be protected speech; S3 decides only the subpoena, not whether the driver was an employee.
- Directly rejects practical-burden and market-choice arguments in S4, noting the manufacturer "submitted no evidence that such manufacturers exist".
- Uses consequence-based reasoning against a literal reading: in S3, Uber's reading would have 'absurd consequences, encouraging employers to stonewall'; and he 'cannot conceive of any valid policy rationale' for confining subpoenas to site inspections.
- S2 openly invites legislative correction ("Unless and until the Legislature sees fit to amend") instead of building a mental-state rule itself; Wiley's concurrence criticizes the resulting ambiguity.
- The co-signed S5 concurrence uses strong language ("pure stereotyping", "microaggression") and cites implicit-bias training materials. It is written in Stratton's first person; he co-signed it.
Limits: Published opinions are a minority of a justice's work; most appeals are decided in unpublished opinions. The one separate opinion is co-signed and written in a colleague's voice, so no sample text shows him writing alone in disagreement. Nothing is from 2025 and none is a criminal case, though five of his 18 published cases in the window are criminal appeals. No unscripted speech. Joined majority opinions, which the census does not list, are not covered. S2 is long and was read selectively.