Office of Governor Gavin Newsom

Governor Newsom Announces Judicial Appointments 12.7.23

Published: Dec 07, 2023

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom today announced his nomination of two Court of Appeal Justices: Judge Monique Langhorne Wilson as an Associate Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division One and Aimee Feinberg as an Associate Justice of the Third District Court of Appeal.

The Governor also announced his appointment of 18 Superior Court Judges, which include one in Contra Costa County; eight in Los Angeles County; one in Madera County; one in Marin County; three in Orange County; one in Riverside County; two in San Francisco County; and one in Santa Barbara County.

First District Court of Appeal

judicial assignments san francisco

Judge Monique Langhorne Wilson, of Solano County, has been nominated to serve as an Associate Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division One. She has served as a Judge at the Napa County Superior Court since 2018. Judge Langhorne Wilson served as a Commissioner at the Napa County Superior Court from 2006 to 2018. She served as a Deputy District Attorney at the Napa County District Attorney’s Office from 2000 to 2006 and was a Family Support Officer at the Napa County Department of Child Support Services from 1999 to 2000. Judge Langhorne Wilson earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. She fills the vacancy created by the appointment of Justice Gabriel P. Sanchez to the federal bench. This position requires confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which consists of Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Senior Presiding Justice Jim Humes. Judge Langhorne Wilson is a Democrat.

Third District Court of Appeal

judicial assignments san francisco

Aimee Feinberg, of Yolo County, has been nominated to serve as an Associate Justice of the Third District Court of Appeal. Feinberg has been Of Counsel at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP since 2023. She served as a Deputy Solicitor General at the California Department of Justice from 2014 to 2023. She was a Lecturer and Director of the California Supreme Court Clinic at the University of California, Davis School of Law from 2012 to 2014 and an Associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP from 2005 to 2011. She served as a Law Clerk for the Honorable Stephen G. Breyer at the U.S. Supreme Court from 2004 to 2005 and for the Honorable David S. Tatel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 2003 to 2004. Feinberg was an Associate at Covington & Burling from 2002 to 2003. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from Stanford Law School. Feinberg fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Andrea Hoch. This position requires confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments, which consists of Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Senior Presiding Justice Laurie M. Earl. Feinberg is a Democrat.

The compensation for each of these positions is $265,944.

Contra Costa County Superior Court

judicial assignments san francisco

Melissa O’Connell, of Contra Costa County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. O’Connell has been Interim Co-Legal Director at the Northern California Innocence Project, Santa Clara University School of Law since May 2023 and has been a Staff Attorney and Policy Liaison there since 2010. She was a Lecturer at the Santa Clara University School of Law from 2010 to 2023. O’Connell was a Sole Practitioner in 2009 and an Attorney at Cooper Law Offices from 2007 to 2009. She served as a Deputy Public Defender at the Solano County Public Defender’s Office from 2004 to 2007 and was a Staff Attorney at Fresh Lifelines for Youth from 2003 to 2004. O’Connell earned a Juris Doctor degree from the Santa Clara University School of Law. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Nancy D. Stark. O’Connell is a Democrat.

Los Angeles County Superior Court

judicial assignments san francisco

Kelly Boyer, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Boyer has served as Supervising Attorney at the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office since 2019 and has served in several roles there since 2008, including filing and trial Attorney. She was an Associate at Carrick and Conrad from 2006 to 2007. Boyer earned a Juris Doctor degree from Southwestern Law School. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Randy Rhodes. Boyer is registered without party preference.

judicial assignments san francisco

Stephanie Dixon, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dixon has served as a Deputy Public Defender at the Los Angeles County Alternate Public Defender’s Office since 2002. She served as a Deputy Public Defender at the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office from 1997 to 2002 and in the Office of the San Diego County Public Defender’s Office from 1995 to 1997. Dixon earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. She fills the vacancy created by the elevation of Justice Audra Mori to the Court of Appeal. Dixon is a Democrat.

judicial assignments san francisco

Christine Gonong, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Gonong has served as a Commissioner at the Los Angeles County Superior Court since 2022. She served as a member of the State Bar of California Board of Trustees from 2020 to 2022. Gonong was an Adjunct Professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law from 2017 to 2022 and at the Los Angeles Valley College in 2017. She was Director of Law and Motion at Nguyen Lawyers ALC from 2016 to 2022 and served as a Law Clerk for the Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2012 to 2014. Gonong earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. She fills the vacancy created by the elevation of Judge Wesley Hsu to the federal bench. Gonong is a Democrat.

judicial assignments san francisco

Anne Kiley, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Kiley has been a Partner at Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben & Gartside LLP since 2016. She was a Partner at Kiley Dunlap LLP in 2016. Kiley was a Partner at Trope and Trope LLP from 1999 to 2016 and was an Associate there from 1990 to 1999. She was an Associate at O’Melveny & Myers from 1989 to 1990. Kiley earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Michigan Law School. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Dalila C. Lyons. She is a Democrat.

judicial assignments san francisco

Natalie Nardecchia, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Nardecchia has been a Senior Trial Attorney at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission since 2019 and has served in several roles there since 2018, including Acting Supervisory Attorney and Trial Attorney. She was a Senior Attorney at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund from 2017 to 2018. Nardecchia served as a Trial Attorney at the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor from 2012 to 2017 and was a Staff Attorney at the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles from 2011 to 2012. She was an Associate at Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP from 2007 to 2010 and a Legal Fellow at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California from 2006 to 2007. Nardecchia earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge James R. Dabney. Nardecchia is a Democrat.

judicial assignments san francisco

Scott Nord, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Nord has served as a Commissioner at the Los Angeles County Superior Court since 2015. He was a Sole Practitioner from 1997 to 2015. Nord was an Attorney at the Law Offices of Klass, Helman & Ross from 1996 to 1997. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from Whittier Law School. Nord fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Yolanda Orozco. He is a Democrat.

judicial assignments san francisco

Melanie Ochoa, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Ochoa has been Director of Police Practices at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California since 2021, where she has been Senior Staff Attorney since 2020 and was a Staff Attorney from 2016 to 2020. She was an Associate at O’Melveny & Myers LLP from 2012 to 2016 and served as a Law Clerk for the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2011 to 2012. Ochoa earned a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School and a Master of Arts degree in Sociology and Doctor of Philosophy degree in Sociology and Social Policy from Harvard University. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Nancy L. Newman. Ochoa is a Democrat.

judicial assignments san francisco

Stephanie Santoro, of Los Angeles County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Santoro has served as a Deputy Attorney General at the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General since 2012. She was an Associate at O’Melveny & Myers LLP from 2008 to 2011. Santoro earned a Juris Doctor degree from Loyola Law School. She fills the vacancy created by the elevation of Justice Rashida Adams to the Court of Appeal. She is a Democrat.

Madera County Superior Court

judicial assignments san francisco

Miguel Valdovinos, of Madera County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Madera County Superior Court. Valdovinos has served as a Deputy District Attorney at the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office since June 2023. He served as a Deputy District Attorney at the Madera County District Attorney’s Office from 2020 to June 2023. He served in several roles at the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office from 2015 to 2019, including Senior Deputy District Attorney and Supervising Deputy District Attorney. Valdovinos was an Adjunct Professor at Lincoln Law School from 2016 to 2018. He served as an Assistant District Attorney at the Madera County District Attorney’s office from 2011 to 2015 and served in several positions at the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office from 2000 to 2010, including Chief Deputy District Attorney, Supervising Deputy District Attorney and Deputy District Attorney. He was a Deputy District Attorney at the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office in 2000 and at the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office from 1996 to 1999. Valdovinos earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Davis School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge James E. Oakley. Valdovinos is a Republican.

Marin County Superior Court

judicial assignments san francisco

Judge Kevin Murphy, of Marin County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Marin County Superior Court. He has served as a Judge at the Alameda County Superior Court since 2006. He served as a Deputy District Attorney at the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office from 1985 to 2006 and as a Deputy Attorney General at the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General in 1994. Judge Murphy earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Roy Chernus. Judge Murphy is a Democrat.

Orange County Superior Court

judicial assignments san francisco

June Jee An, of Orange County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Orange County Superior Court. An has served as a Commissioner at the Orange County Superior Court since 2022. She served as a Deputy General Counsel at the Orange County Superior Court from 2016 to 2022 and as a Probate Research Attorney there from 2014 to 2016. An served as a Research Attorney at the Los Angeles County Superior Court from 2005 to 2014 and was an Associate at Kalcheim Salah from 2003 to 2005. She earned a Juris Doctor degree from Loyola Law School. An fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Kim R. Hubbard. She is a Democrat.

judicial assignments san francisco

Huy Nguyen, of Orange County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Orange County Superior Court. Nguyen has served as a Senior Deputy Alternate Defender at the Orange County Alternate Defender’s Office since 2018. He served as a Senior Deputy Public Defender at the Orange County Public Defender’s Office from 2003 to 2018. Nguyen was an Attorney at the Law Office of Andre Lam in 2003 and in the Law Office of Peter Nguyen from 2002 to 2003. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from Whittier Law School. Nguyen fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Gerald G. Johnston. He is a Democrat.

judicial assignments san francisco

Kunthavi Watson, of Orange County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Orange County Superior Court. Watson has served as a Commissioner at the Orange County Superior Court since 2023. She served in several roles at the Long Beach City Prosecutor’s Office from 2008 to 2023, including Supervising Deputy City Prosecutor and Deputy City Prosecutor. She was an Attorney at Trutanich Michel LLP from 2006 to 2007. Watson earned a Juris Doctor degree from Whittier Law School. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Dennis J. Keough. Watson is a Democrat.

Riverside County Superior Court

judicial assignments san francisco

Melissa Hale, of San Bernardino County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Riverside County Superior Court. Hale has served as a Deputy Public Defender at the Riverside County Public Defender’s Office since 2006. She was an Adjunct Professor at the University of La Verne College of Law from 2016 to 2019. Hale earned a Juris Doctor degree from Whittier Law School. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Elaine Kiefer. She is registered without party preference.

San Francisco County Superior Court

judicial assignments san francisco

Anne Costin, of San Francisco County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the San Francisco County Superior Court. Costin has been a Sole Practitioner since 2013. She was an Adjunct Professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law from 2011 to 2017 and an Associate at the Dolan Law Firm from 2007 to 2013. Costin earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law. She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Gail Dekreon. She is a Democrat.

judicial assignments san francisco

Kenneth Wine, of San Francisco County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the San Francisco County Superior Court. Wine has been a Partner at Hallinan & Wine since 2000. He was an Associate at Niesen & Associates from 1992 to 1997. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from the Ohio State University College of Law. Wine fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Cynthia M. Lee. He is a Democrat.

Santa Barbara County Superior Court

judicial assignments san francisco

Stephen Dunkle, of Santa Barbara County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court. Dunkle has been a Partner at Sanger Dunkle Law PC since 2011 and was an Associate there from 2004 to 2011. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. Dunkle fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Brian E. Hill. He is a Democrat.

The compensation for each of these positions is $232,399.

basf blog

2014 Judicial Assignments

judicial assignments san francisco

San Francisco Superior Court Presiding Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee has announced new judicial assignments that take effect January 21, 2014.

Click on the document below to download the assignments (PDF document, 130KB)

JudAssignJan14_Page_1

Related Posts

judicial assignments san francisco

July 2023 Members in the News

June 2023 members in the news.

judicial assignments san francisco

Meet Your Environmental Regulators Reception Recap

0 comments on “ 2014 judicial assignments ”, leave a reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • The Bar Association of San Francisco
  • Justice and Diversity Center
  • Lawyer Referral and Information Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Pro Se Litigants

Civil Docketing Assignments

Effective September 1, 2021, civil docketing assignments in all divisions will be made according to the terminal case digit, i.e., the last digit of the case number.  (For example: _ _-CV-_ _ _ _ 1 ).  Case assignments will be made as shown in the following table.

NOTE:   MDL case inquiries are to be made in the division where the assigned judge is located.  Please call the main contact number for each division:

Page last updated: June 6, 2022

  • All Judges’ Weekly Calendars
  • Available Equipment in Courtrooms
  • Journalist and Media Information and Rules
  • Judicial Misconduct or Disability
  • Seminars Disclosure
  • Visiting Judges Information

Popular Keywords

Nothing was found. Try another keyword.

Personalized Solutions. Effortless Experience. File Thru Trial ™.

First Legal's White Logo

  • Company About Us Learn more about what sets First Legal apart. Meet Our Team Get to know the experts that will handle your needs. Careers   Client Care & Success   File Thru Trial™   Our Locations  
  • Court & Process
  • Depositions
  • Investigations
  • Trial Support Services
  • Corporate Programs
  • Resources Court Information Court Updates Forms & Resources MCLEs & Webinars Blog Case Studies FAQ
  • GET STARTED

Home » Thought Leadership » SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT: AMENDED JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENTS

  • May 12, 2023

SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT: AMENDED JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENTS

Court Notice

AMENDED JUDICIAL ASSIGNMENTS

The following amended Judicial Assignments are effective Monday, May 15, 2023 , and are subject to further amendment based on retirement, judicial appointment, or other needs of the court. CHANGES ARE IN THE LINK BELOW.

You can view the current notice here .

First Legal, your premier litigation support provider.

If you have questions on any of our services, please don't hesitate to get in touch with us.

Related posts.

Court Notice

LASC: UPCOMING SYSTEM MAINTENANCE TODAY AND THIS WEEKEND

LASC: UPCOMING SYSTEM MAINTENANCE TODAY AND THIS WEEKEND Los Angeles County Superior Court, Civil Dept. will be conducting two maintenance updates to their eFiling system:

LASC: COURT IMPLEMENTS REVISED SEARCH PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINAL CASES

LASC: COURT IMPLEMENTS REVISED SEARCH PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINAL CASES Effective close of business February 23, 2024, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County will no

LASC: COURT ANNOUNCES NEW CIVIL FILING RULE EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 26: ALL MOTIONS MUST BE FILED WITHIN THREE COURT DAYS OF RESERVATION OR RESERVATION WILL BE CANCELLED

LASC: COURT ANNOUNCES NEW CIVIL FILING RULE EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 26: ALL MOTIONS MUST BE FILED WITHIN THREE COURT DAYS OF RESERVATION OR RESERVATION WILL BE

judicial assignments san francisco

Judge Daniel A. Flores

I have the honor of serving as a San Francisco Superior Court Judge.  The people of my hometown bestowed this honor upon me in 2014 when they elected me into office. Before becoming a judge I was a lawyer and had the privilege of successfully representing hundreds of clients in civil and criminal cases. My career path has been driven by my desire to help people understand the complicated legal system. I ran for judge after thirteen years of practice because I realized that my ability to help would be greatly increased by being on the other side of the bench.

I continue to live in San Francisco with my wife and two children. 

judicial assignments san francisco

Personal History

I am the first in my family to be born in the United States.  My parents met in El Salvador and later immigrated to the US for a better life. The majority of both sides of their families followed in the years to come. Growing up surrounded by relatives that couldn't speak English exposed me to discrimination and taught me at an early age how important it is to be able to advocate for oneself. Dignity and justice, as I regretfully learned, is something we often have to fight for. 

While I was always a happy kid, I did have my share of troubles at school. These were mostly due to my unwillingness to accept actual/perceived injustices or disrespect and my immaturity to properly deal with the same. My folks moved out of SF when I was entering high school for fear that my trouble would escalate. Moving to the suburbs didn't change me, but it did expose me to a new environment.  At seventeen I realized that in order to not completely destroy my parents' pursuit of the American Dream I needed to do something - quick.  I joined the Marine Corps Reserve which kept me in line for the rest of my senior year and I left for boot camp two days after high school graduation. 

In addition to the Marines, I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to my parents for setting a great example of hard work and integrity and to the Future Leaders of America, a Latino leadership program that took me in based on the unused potential they saw. 

judicial assignments san francisco

Life in the Law

Upon my return from my initial military training, I enrolled at CSU, Sacramento. I obtained my bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice and I was on off to McGeorge School of Law on an academic scholarship.  While in law school, I externed with La Raza Centro Legal in San Francisco, was a Real Property Law tutor, and served as the president of the Latino Law Students Association. I graduated from law school, with honors, in 2001.

I began my career as a civil litigation attorney with the law firm of Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley.  In 2005, I opened my own practice which I kept until I was sworn in as a judge.  I enjoyed practicing law, helped a lot of people, and was recognized with various distinctions such as being named in the criminal defense list of the Northern California Super Lawyers that recognizes the top 5% of lawyers in Northern California. 

The biggest distinction of my career came on November 4, 2014 when the voters of San Francisco elected me to serve as Superior Court Judge. The campaign trail was tough, but interesting and educational. I enjoyed meeting people from all districts and neighborhoods. I met people with widely varying interests and political viewpoints and one thing remained constant - they all wanted a judge who would treat people with respect, work hard, and make fair decisions according to the law; not politics. I promised to be that judge and feel confident that I have been true to my word.

I thank you for taking the time to learn more about my background. 

Judicial Assignment

I currently preside over civil and criminal jury trials at our Civic Center Courthouse.

The San Francisco Court has 52 judicial  positions. While other counties differ, our longstanding philosophy has been that judges can better serve the community when they are cross-trained in various areas of the law. According, most San Francisco judges will rotate assignments throughout their career.

Paid for by Daniel A. Flores. No public funds or resources were used to create this site. The official court website can be found at: www.sfsuperiorcourt.org

  • Forms & Rules
  • Policy & Administration
  • News & Reference

search icon

  • Civil Case Coordination
  • Superior Courts
  • Judges Roster
  • Local Rules
  • Reduced Court Services

Contact Info

Defining a complex civil action.

Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court defines a complex civil action. If the actions are complex, a petition is filed with the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.) If the actions are not complex, a motion to coordinate is filed directly in the court where the actions are to be transferred and where one of the included actions is pending, rather than with the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.)

Some typical complex actions include:

  • Antitrust claims;
  • Construction defect claims involving many parties or structures;
  • Securities claims or investment losses involving many parties;
  • Environmental claims involving many parties;
  • Mass tort claims; and
  • Claims involving class actions.

View the Civil Case Coordination Fact Sheet for more information.

Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP) Log 

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.550(b)(2) , the Judicial Council of California maintains a register (log) of complex coordination proceedings for public inspection.

  • Civil Case Coordination 2018 to Present  (Last Updated: February 2, 2024)
  • Civil Case Coordination Archive Log 2017 and Older JCCP No: 3216-4961 (Last Updated: February 2, 2024)

Frequently Asked Questions

What kinds of actions can be coordinated, when is coordination appropriate, what is a complex action, must all the plaintiffs or all the defendants in one of the actions agree that coordination is appropriate, are the actions automatically stayed when a petition for coordination is filed, who can submit a petition for coordination to the chair of the judicial council, what are the methods for initiating coordination of complex civil actions, is there a fee for filing a petition for coordination, what documents does the petitioner submit to the chair of the judicial council, where is a petition for coordination submitted, what documents are filed with the superior court, what is a "proof of service of filing".

  • How can a petitioner obtain a stay of the actions pending the ruling on the Petition for Coordination?

When is an opposition or other response to a petition due?

Where is an opposition to/support for a petition for coordination sent, who assigns the coordination motion judge, when coordination has been granted, what is the next step, how is the location of the coordination trial judge selected, after a coordination trial judge has been assigned, what happens next, once coordination has been granted, how are the documents filed, once coordination has been granted, what documents are filed with the judicial council, is more information available.

Coordination brings to one court two or more "civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law [that] are pending in different courts." (Code Civ. Proc., § 404) The statutory reference to "different courts" means courts in different counties.

Distinct from coordination is the process of consolidation. Consolidation is the procedure for uniting separate actions involving common questions of fact or law that are pending in the same county. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 403, 404, 1048(a).)

Not all separate actions sharing common questions of fact or law should be coordinated. Coordination is appropriate if it will promote the ends of justice, taking into account whether (a) the common question of fact or law predominates and is significant to the litigation; (b) the convenience of the parties, witnesses, and counsel; (c) the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; (d) the efficient use of judicial resources;(e) the calendar of the courts; (f) the disadvantage of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; (g) and the likelihood of settlement without further litigation if coordination is denied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1.)

Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court defines a complex civil action. If the actions are complex, a petition is filed with the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.)

If the actions are not complex, a motion to coordinate is filed directly in the court where the actions are to be transferred and where one of the included actions is pending, rather than with the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.) 1

1 On September 21, 1996, the statutes and rules were changed so that they now direct parties to file a motion to coordinate noncomplex actions directly with one of the courts in which an action is pending.

For actions involving complex issues, only all the parties plaintiff or all the parties defendant in one of the actions to be coordinated may submit a petition directly to the chair of the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.)

Actions are not automatically stayed upon the filing of a petition to coordinate, but they may be stayed by the coordination motion judge. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.515.) Additionally, no trial of an included action may be started after the court receives an order assigning a coordination motion judge, and a coordination motion judge may stay pretrial proceedings. It takes time-approximately 30 to 60 days-to process the petition for coordination from filing to issuance of an order by the chair of the Judicial Council assigning the coordination motion judge. A motion to stay proceedings may be filed with the petition for coordination. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.515(a).)

A petition for coordination may be submitted by any of the following:

  • A presiding judge of any court in which one of the included actions is pending.
  • All plaintiffs or all defendants to one of the included actions. This means that all the parties on one side of one lawsuit must join in the petition in order to submit the petition directly to the Judicial Council without prior leave of court.
  • Any party to one of the actions, after obtaining an order granting permission from the presiding judge. The party must include the order granting permission when it submits its petition to coordinate to the Chair of the Judicial Council.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 404, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.520(b).)

First-time petitioners frequently think that the procedural rule 3.520(b) (of the California Rules of Court) is an alternative to the petition procedure. This is incorrect. The petitioner avoids delay and duplication of effort by petitioning the Judicial Council directly, but the petitioner must satisfy "the all parties plaintiff or defendant rule" set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 404 in order to do so. In contrast, rule 3.520(b) provides a means to obtain leave of the court to petition for coordination if the rule has not been satisfied. No other coordination procedure exists in the superior court for complex actions pending in more than one county .

The Judicial Council does not charge a filing fee.

A petition packet submitted to the chair of the Judicial Council should contain an original and one copy, and an additional copy plus a self-addressed stamped envelope if a conformed copy is requested, of the following documents:

  • Petition for Coordination;
  • Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities;
  • Supporting Declaration (that the actions sought to be coordinated are complex and meet the standards for coordination); and
  • An order from the presiding judge granting permission to submit a Petition for Coordination, if a direct petition is not authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 404.
The following documents must be submitted within five calendar days of submitting the Petition for Coordination:
  • Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination;
  • Proof of Service of Petition for Coordination, Points and Authorities, Declaration and Notice of Submission on all parties in the included actions;
  • Proof of Service of Petition for Coordination, Points and Authorities, Declaration and Notice of Submission on clerk for filing in each included action;
  • Proof of Filing Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination in each included action; and
  • Application for Stay Order with proof of service (if a stay is requested from the coordination motion judge). (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.510; 3.511; 3.515; 3.521; 3.522; 3.523.)

A petition for coordination and other required documents are submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Council at the following address:

Chair, Judicial Council of California Attn: Appellate Court Services (Civil Case Coordination) 455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor San Francisco, California 94102-3688

The following documents are filed with the superior court in each included action :

  • Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination; and
  • Copy of the Petition for Coordination with supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.522.)  

Under rule 3.522 of the California Rules of Court, the documents submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Council must demonstrate proof that the Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination was filed in each included superior court action. Within five calendar days after submitting the Petition for Coordination, the petitioner must submit to the Chair of the Judicial Council proof of filing of the Notice of Submission of Petition and Proof of Service of the Notice of Submission of Petition and of the Petition (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.522.).

Following are suggested methods for satisfying this requirement:

  • List the clerks of the courts and addresses for each included action on the proof of service by mail.
  • Submit a declaration of service by mail that states under penalty of perjury that the Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination for the included action was transmitted to the court for filing in that included action. When the court returns a file-stamped copy of the Notice of Submission of Petition for Coordination, send a copy to the chair of the Judicial Council at the address shown above.  

How can a petitioner obtain a stay of actions pending the ruling on the Petition for Coordination?

The stay procedures are described in rule 3.515 of the California Rules of Court. Important factors to note are the following:

  • The Chair of the Judicial Council never issues a stay.
  • There is an automatic stay of trial and stay of entry of judgment when the Chair of the Judicial Council's order assigning a coordination motion judge (or delegating that authority to a presiding judge) is filed in the action unless the trial has already begun (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.515.)
  • A stay of anything other than a trial and entry of judgment may be requested and included with the petition for coordination or may be submitted and served at any time before the petition for coordination is determined. Opposition to a stay request must be served on all parties and submitted to the Judicial Council within 10 days after service of the application (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.515(a).)
  • An order granting coordination that is filed in an included action acts as a stay of the superior court action, except as directed by the coordination motion judge for urgent matters pending assignment of a coordination trial judge or by the coordination trial judge (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.529(b)(c).)

As noted above, it takes approximately 30 to 60 days to process a petition for coordination from the date the Judicial Council receives it until the Chair of the Judicial Council assigns a coordination motion judge (or delegates the authority to assign a motion judge to the superior court presiding judge). When a coordination motion judge is assigned, he or she may summarily deny the petition on the ground that trial is imminent (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.521(d).) Accordingly, it is usually safer to move to continue a trial in the superior court where the action is pending than to risk delayed assignment of a coordination motion judge, or a summary denial by the coordination motion judge.

Any party to an included action who opposes coordination may serve and submit a memorandum and declarations in opposition to the petition. Any response in opposition must be served and filed at least nine court days before the date set for hearing. A response in support is also due at least nine court days before the hearing. (Cal. Rule of Court, rules 3.525; 3.526.)

If the Chair of the Judicial Council has not yet issued an order assigning a coordination motion judge, send an original and a copy of the opposition to or support for the petition to coordinate directly to the Chair. If the Chair of the Judicial Council has already issued an order assigning a coordination motion judge, send the original opposition to or support for the petition directly to the presiding judge of the court where the coordination motion judge is assigned and send a copy to the Judicial Council.

If the assignment order is issued to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County , papers should be sent to the Managing Judge of the Complex Litigation Program at the following address:

Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Spring Street Courthouse, Department 14 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012

The Chair of the Judicial Council assigns a coordination motion judge to determine whether coordination is appropriate. The chair of the Judicial Council may authorize a presiding judge to assign a judge to make that determination. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.524.)

The coordination motion judge will prepare an order or ask the petitioning party to prepare an order granting coordination. The order may include a recommendation for the location of the coordinated proceedings. The order must specify the reviewing court having appellate jurisdiction if the actions to be coordinated are within the jurisdiction of more than one reviewing court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.2.) The order must be filed in each action, served on all parties, and transmitted to the Judicial Council (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.529, 3.511). The Chair of the Judicial Council will assign a coordination trial judge. It takes approximately three weeks to process the trial assignment.

The rules and statutes do not provide for input by the parties on the appropriate location for assignment of the coordination trial judge. The parties may, however, present their views in the petition for coordination and in any opposition papers, and to the coordination motion judge at the time of the hearing on the petition to coordinate. If the coordination motion judge grants coordination, he or she may include in the order granting coordination a recommendation for the location of the coordinated proceedings. Upon receipt of the order, the Chair of the Judicial Council will consider the recommendation but is not bound by it. The Chair of the Judicial Council then issues an order assigning a coordination trial judge (or delegates this authority to a presiding judge). The coordination trial judge has ultimate authority to decide where the actions will be tried and can schedule trials at any site within the state. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.540; 3.541(b)(2).)

The coordination trial judge must hold a case management conference within 45 days after issuance of the assignment order. Counsel and all self-represented persons must attend the conference and be prepared to discuss all matters specified in the order setting the conference. At any time following the assignment of the coordination trial judge, a party may serve and submit a proposed agenda for the conference and a proposed form of order covering such matters of procedure and discovery as may be appropriate. At the conference, the judge may:

  • Appoint liaison counsel under rule 3.506;
  • Establish a timetable for filing motions other than discovery motions;
  • Establish a schedule for discovery;
  • Provide a method and schedule for the submission of preliminary legal questions that might serve to expedite the disposition of the coordinated actions;
  • In class actions, establish a schedule, if practicable, for the prompt determination of matters pertinent to the class action issue;
  • Establish a central depository or depositories to receive and maintain for inspection by the parties evidentiary material and specified documents that are not required by the rules in this chapter to be served on all parties; and
  • Schedule further conference is appropriate. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.541(a).)  

The assigned coordination trial judge will decide how documents are to be filed, which may include e-filing and using a central depository (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.541, 3.751). Rules related to filing coordinated case papers include the following:

  • All documents shall bear the Judicial Council special title and number (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.550(c).)
  • All documents shall be submitted to the coordination trial judge (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.540(c)).
  • Specified documents shall be transmitted to the chair of the Judicial Council (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.511).

General civil law applies when the coordination rules are silent (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.504). This could mean that documents in coordination actions must be filed as if no coordination were in effect except as provided in (1, (2), and (3) above or unless otherwise ordered by the coordination trial judge. Documents would therefore be filed in each included action. To avoid the expense and inconvenience of filing in each action, counsel could ask the coordination trial judge to select a lead action and to limit the filing of documents to the master file.

  • Order assigning the coordination trial judge (if authority to assign was delegated to the presiding judge);
  • Petition for coordination of add-on cases;
  • Order granting or denying coordination of add-on cases;
  • Order assigning new coordination trial judge (if authority to assign was delegated to the presiding judge);
  • Order of remand;
  • Order of transfer;
  • Order terminating a coordination proceeding in whole or in part;
  • Order dismissing an included or coordinated action;
  • Notice of stay and reasons (e.g., order of federal court or automatic stay such as filing in bankruptcy court);
  • Notice that stay is vacated;
  • Notice of appeal;
  • Notice of disposition of appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.511.)  

The Judicial Council of California's free publication Coordination of Civil Actions includes sample pleadings, statutes, and rules related to coordinating complex civil actions pending in different counties.

To order a copy or for additional information, call the Coordination Unit at 415-865-7630 or e-mail [email protected] .

Judicial Branch of California

Hero image

Superior Court of San Mateo County

Juror services, traffic tickets, search case records, hearings/courtoom listing.

Updated December 28, 2022 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023: COURT POLICY FOR USE OF PRIVATELY RETAINED COURT REPORTING IN CIVIL AND PROBATE PROCEEDINGS .

Interpreter Services

Zoom hearing credentials, tentative rulings, law and motion calendar, self-prep and file, court news & notices, 2024-2025 civil grand jury application period announcement, notice of intent to award - #24-r002 - courthouse clinic evaluator, 2024 central branch judicial assignment order effective january 2, judicial assignments order criminal supervising judge change, 2024 judicial assignments order commissioner change, other services, career opportunities.

Check out a list of career opportunities with the Court.

Community Resources for Remote Access

Self Help Community Resources for Remote Access

View a list Online Resources available

Restraining Order Resources

Self-Prep & File

Court Leadership

Presiding Judge :  Hon. Elizabeth K. Lee Assistant Presiding Judge :  Hon. Stephanie Garratt Court Executive Officer :  Neal I. Taniguchi

Central Branch

800 North Humboldt Street San Mateo , CA 94401 United States

Juvenile Branch

222 Paul Scannell Drive San Mateo , CA 94402 United States

Northern Branch

1050 Mission Road South San Francisco , CA 94080 United States

Southern Branch: Hall of Justice and Records

400 County Center Redwood City , CA 94063 United States

USC Logo

  • Faculty & Staff
  • Parents & Families
  • First-Generation Students
  • International Students
  • Job Seekers Who Were Formerly Incarcerated
  • LGBTQ+ Students
  • Student Accessibility
  • Students of Color
  • Undocumented & DACA Students
  • Veteran Students
  • Womxn Students
  • Advertising, Marketing, and PR
  • Architecture, Construction, and Design
  • Business Management and Administration
  • Computer Science and Information Technology
  • Consulting and Finance
  • Data Science, Statistics, and Artificial Intelligence
  • Education and Research
  • Engineering
  • Entertainment, Media, and Communications
  • Environment and Sustainability
  • Government, Non-Profit, and Public Administration
  • Health and Life Sciences, Biotech, and Pharmaceuticals
  • International Opportunities
  • Law, Policy, and Social Justice
  • Performing and Visual Arts
  • Labor Market Insights
  • Career Development Process
  • Appointments & Requests
  • Explore Events
  • Personal Finance
  • Resumes/Cover Letters/Curriculum Vitaes
  • Interview Preparation
  • Offer Negotiation
  • On-Campus Jobs
  • On-Campus Recruiting
  • Workplace Success
  • Professional Development Advice
  • eNewsletter
  • Meet the Team
  • School-Based Career Services

Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

Court staff attorney i-ii (asbestos & ceqa).

  • Share This: Share Court Staff Attorney I-II (Asbestos & CEQA) on Facebook Share Court Staff Attorney I-II (Asbestos & CEQA) on LinkedIn Share Court Staff Attorney I-II (Asbestos & CEQA) on X

COURT STAFF ATTORNEY I-II

(Asbestos & CEQA)

The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, invites applications from qualified individuals interested in serving as Court Staff Attorney I-II, providing complex legal research and legal consultation for judicial officers. This recruitment will be used to fill one position in the Asbestos and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Department. Once appointed, however, the incumbent may be moved to other assignments as the needs of the Court dictate. The incumbent must be an attorney with professional legal experience as a member of the State Bar of California. An incumbent with more than two years of legal experience as a member of the State Bar of California may be appointed at the Court Staff Attorney II level.

This selection process is being conducted in accordance with San Francisco Superior Court Personnel Rule 4. An eligibility list will not be established.

FINAL FILING DATE: 4:00PM, February 28, 2024

COMPENSATION: Court Staff Attorney II

$4,584.10 to $5,572.28 biweekly ($119,186 to $144,879 annually)

Court Staff Attorney I

$3,772.02 to $4,584.10 biweekly ($98,072 to $119,186 annually)

The Court offers a generous benefits package including a variety of health and dental insurance plans, a contributory retirement plan, a deferred compensation savings program, paid vacation, sick leave, floating holidays, and holiday pay.

POSITION OVERVIEW

Essential Duties:

The Court Staff Attorney I-II incumbent is expected to perform the more complex professional legal work and research with minimal guidance and supervision. The following duties are typically performed:

Performs complex professional legal assignments and research for the Asbestos and CEQA Department.

Reviews and summarizes legal evidence, procedural history, and legal contentions in matters related to a variety of legal cases and Court calendars. Carefully reviews briefs in discovery and law and motion matters in complex asbestos actions (e.g., motions for summary judgment/adjudication, motions for preference, demurrers and motions to strike, motions to compel). Reviews motions, writ petitions and voluminous administrative records in CEQA actions.

Researches individual issues requested by the Department Judge. Researches and analyzes existing law. Researches legal authorities, including statutory and case law, appellate court decisions, and legislative history, using both traditional and computerized legal research methods. Meets with judicial officers and provides oral briefings on the results of research, as requested.

Advises the Department Judge regarding issues raised in informal discovery conferences and case management conferences.

Conducts ex parte hearings, questions the attorneys, and orally briefs the judge.

Responds to judicial officer inquiries on procedural and substantive issues during trials and pre-trial hearings, including motions, evidentiary objections, jury instructions, status of case authorities cited by counsel, and points of substantive law.

Prepares memoranda for matters researched, summarizing background, identifying and analyzing factual and legal issues raised in CEQA actions, and recommending disposition of legal issues for use by judicial officers.

Reviews the Local Rules applicable to the Asbestos and CEQA Department, and drafts proposed amendments.

Drafts rulings for Court cases, including minute orders, formal orders, tentative decisions, statements of decision, and judgments for review and use by judicial officers. Reviews, drafts and edits orders in CEQA actions.

Drafts correspondence to counsel and other concerned parties regarding matters pending before the Court.

Trains and supervises law student externs as needed.

Working Conditions: Work is performed in an office and courtroom environment; continuous contact with judicial officers, executive management, litigants, attorneys, other staff and the public. Initial assignment will be at the Civic Center Courthouse.

Physical Requirements: Sit for extended periods; frequently stand and walk; normal manual dexterity and eye-hand coordination; lift and move objects weighing up to 25 lbs.; corrected hearing and vision to normal range; verbal communication; use of office equipment, including computer, telephone, calculator, copiers, and FAX.

REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS

Current membership in the State Bar of California.

Two or more years of full-time professional legal work experience as a member of the State Bar of California is required for the Court Staff Attorney II level.

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS

Knowledge of:

  • Principles of civil litigation as well as administrative law.
  • California codes and statutes applicable to civil law, Code of Civil Procedure, Evidence Code, California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines.
  • Judicial procedures and the rules of evidence.
  • Legal research methods.
  • Interviewing techniques.
  • Computers and software used in professional legal work.

Ability to:

  • Perform a wide scope of professional legal and legal research work.
  • Analyze facts and apply legal precedents and principles to assigned legal review and research work.
  • Analyze issues with an adjudicatory viewpoint, rather than that of an advocate.
  • Review lengthy, complicated briefs and identify the relevant issues.
  • Provide sound legal advice to judicial officers, when requested.
  • Communicate effectively and efficiently, both orally and in writing.
  • Prepare and present a variety of special reports.
  • Operate a computer and use appropriate software in the performance of professional legal work.
  • Effectively represent the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, with the public, petitioners, law enforcement agencies, and other government jurisdictions.
  • Maintain confidential information when required by legal or ethical standards.
  • Establish and maintain cooperative working relationships; effectively interact with judges and court staff.
  • Work independently while also working collaboratively with the judicial officer presiding over the department.

HOW TO APPLY

Interested individuals must apply online and include a valid email address where the applicant can receive future correspondence regarding this position. Applicants must submit ALL the following items:

  • Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, online employment application (fully completed). The link to the online application is available on the Court’s website at https://sf.courts.ca.gov/general-information/human-resourcesemployment
  • Statement of qualifications, limited to one page, only explaining why the applicant is interested in the position and qualified to perform the duties described herein. This one-page statement should succinctly describe the relative education and experience that is applicable to this position.
  • Writing sample not to exceed 5 pages.

The preparation of the application, including the resume, statement of qualifications, and writing sample, is very important to the selection process. It is recommended that applicants review the information in this announcement and on the application very carefully. Once the application has been submitted, it cannot be corrected, changed, or resubmitted. All applications must be submitted online by the final filing date and time indicated in this job announcement.

SELECTION PROCESS

Initial Screening:

Complete application packages received by the final filing date and time will be evaluated to determine if the applicants meet the minimum qualifications. The Court will further evaluate these documents and may interview only those applicants it deems may best meet the needs of the Court. Not all applicants will receive an interview.

Oral Interview:

If necessary, selected applicants may be interviewed to determine their relative knowledge, abilities, and skill levels in job related areas. If interviews are scheduled, it is anticipated that they will be held in March 2024.

Qualified applicants with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in the selection process should complete the relevant section on the employment application.

OTHER APPOINTMENT INFORMATION

Employment is subject to security clearance. Any false statement or omission of material fact may cause forfeiture of employment. Information presented on employment applications, resumes, and attachments and during the selection process is subject to verification. Employees are prohibited from engaging in activities which conflict with the interests of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

Immigration laws require that all employees hired after November 6, 1986, must provide proof of work eligibility. At the time of appointment to a position, all applicants must possess a valid Social Security number and will be required to present original documents which verify citizenship or legal alien status as well as identity (such as a social security card and driver’s license, or a green card and driver’s license, or a valid U.S. passport).

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER. APPLICANTS SHALL NOT BE FAVORED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, GENDER, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, CITIZENSHIP, AGE, MARITAL STATUS, PHYSICAL DISABILITY, MENTAL DISABILITY, MEDICAL CONDITION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENETIC INFORMATION, UNION ACTIVITY, POLITICAL AFFILIATION, OR OTHER NON-MERIT FACTOR.

For questions on the above information, contact the Human Resources Office

of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco,

(415) 551-0381.

This announcement and the online application are available at

https://sf.courts.ca.gov/general-information/human-resourcesemployment

Superior Court of San Francisco: Presiding Judge Announces Amendments to Judicial Assignments Effective May 15, 2023

judicial assignments san francisco

Please find the amended Judicial Assignments effective May 15, 2023, and are subject to further amendment based on retirement, judicial appointment, or other needs.

Click here to learn more.

Categorized in: Court Notices

  • Forms & Rules
  • Policy & Administration
  • News & Reference

search icon

Primary Assignment Orientation/Experienced Assignment Courses, RFP# CRS SP 419

  • Judicial Council
  • Judicial Council Meetings
  • Judicial Council Members
  • Advisory Bodies
  • Judicial Branch Strategic Plan
  • Bidders / Solicitations
  • Judicial Council Index

The Judicial Council of California seeks proposals from hotels for sleeping rooms for October 13-18, 2024 or October 20-25, 2024 in San Francisco, California.   

Proposals must be received by END OF DAY Pacific Time, February 29, 2024.

E-mail proposals to: [email protected] .  Subject line : RFP No. CRS SP 419 Primary Assignment Orientation/Experienced Assignment Courses.

Further information regarding this solicitation is set forth in Request for Proposals (RFP) No. CRS SP 419.

The Judicial Council of California, Conference and Registration Services, does not retain the services of third party or outsourced representation.  All quoted rates are to be net, non-commissionable.

Request for Proposal  (Revised 2/22/2024)

Attachments

  • Attachment 1 - Administrative Rules Governing RFPs
  • Attachment 2 - Hotel Agreement Template
  • Attachment 3, 4 and 6 - Vendors Acceptance of Terms and Conditions, Darfur Contracting Act Certification and Conflict of Interest Certification Forms
  • Attachment 5 – Submission Form for Technical and Cost Proposal

NOTE: The Judicial Council, as a public entity, prohibits direct contact with any Council personnel during the solicitation process in order to maintain fairness and equality to all proposers. Proposers are specifically directed NOT to contact any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants for meetings, conferences, or discussions that are related to the solicitation at any time between release of the solicitation and any award and execution of a contract. Unauthorized contact with any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants may be cause for rejection of the Proposer’s proposal.  

Hundreds of San Francisco criminal cases dismissed after years of delays

Neither the District Attorney’s office nor the Public Defender is happy about the dismissals, and they point the finger at the courts, who say ending the backlog is a group effort.

A line of lawyers wait to have their cases heard in court.

  • Copy link to this article

Since mid-January, the San Francisco district attorney has been forced on a daily basis to dismiss dozens of years-old criminal cases that had become mired in the judicial system as a result of earlier Covid restrictions.

The cases are being cast out because the delays violated the accused’s right to a speedy trial. In many cases, prosecutors were unprepared for trial as witnesses and victims proved uncooperative or were nowhere to be found after years of court inaction. 

A computer display of cases.

In May 2023, Brenda Carroll was charged with domestic violence and elder abuse for allegedly getting into a drunken scuffle with her boyfriend and a man she was caring for after a day of swilling wine. 

By law, she was supposed to go to trial no later than 30 days after her first appearance in court, rather than wait nine months.

On Wednesday, she finally walked into a San Francisco courtroom expecting a trial. Minutes later, she walked back out with a smile on her face, her case dismissed. 

“It's just been a nightmare,” she said of the case’s length. “It's been really hard to go this long” with the case hanging over her head. 

Carroll’s case is one of 705 misdemeanor cases that, as of Jan. 2, had languished in court due to a 4-year-old backlog of cases. An unresolved lawsuit filed by the public defender against the court alleged the delays were violating defendants’ constitutional rights. 

The case dismissals began in late January and come amid noisy political debates about who—police, prosecutors, politicians, the courts or others—are handling crime in the city.

The court’s recent action to begin clearing the backlog, the Public Defender’s Office says, is better than nothing.

People fill the hall outside of a courtroom.

“While we’ve seen some progress in misdemeanor cases in recent weeks,” said Deputy Public Defender Jacque Wilson, “it remains unclear how the court plans to sustain its efforts to fully alleviate the backlog.”

The district attorney, whose prosecutors have been forced to dismiss dozens of cases on a daily basis, blamed the courts for letting so many cases continue for so long.

“The courts have the power to ensure a defendant’s right to a timely trial is honored. The courts are responsible for addressing the backlog,” DA Brooke Jenkins said. “It is unclear why they continued hundreds of cases past the statutory deadlines without establishing a legal basis. Nevertheless, this problem must be resolved by the court.”

San Francisco Superior Court administrators said in a statement that the courts have been in communication with all parties about the new policy addressing the backlog but did not say why each case is being dealt with individually instead of dismissed en masse.

“The Court will continue to collaborate with the parties to address this COVID-related backlog of cases in our court, which historically has handled one of the highest number of misdemeanor trial dockets across the state,” the court’s statement said.

But Jenkins said that it is not her office’s responsibility to “proactively dismiss” cases the court allowed to continue for too long. Rather, she said it is the court’s place to decide if a defendant’s rights have been violated. 

Backlog blues

San Francisco’s superior court is in the same boat as much of the state, which had huge case backlogs by the end of the pandemic . Some of the San Francisco cases are from 2020.

Other jurisdictions have dealt with the backlog by dismissing cases en masse. For example, judges in Riverside County dismissed more than 1,000 backlogged cases in 2022 over the objections of prosecutors. 

The outside of a courthouse.

San Francisco Superior Court, which reopened in June 2021 , until recently continued to justify not calling old cases to trial, citing the long-over Covid emergency. This was done even though the state judicial council ended emergency Covid orders allowing remote hearings, extended deadlines and other rule changes in 2022. 

Public Defender Manohar Raju sued the court in 2021 . He alleged it was violating the constitutional right to a speedy trial of more than 1,000 defendants—some who remained in jail—whose cases were routinely being continued. The case remains in litigation.

A man stands in court.

At its peak, San Francisco had a roughly 400-case felony backlog. More than 50 remain unresolved, according to the Public Defender’s Office. Now, the old misdemeanor cases are being dealt with.

In January, the San Francisco court prioritized the backlogged cases by setting aside courtrooms and having ready jury pools for when judges began calling old cases to trial.

Defendants like Carroll have repeatedly come to court, only to be told they have to come back later. Victims, meanwhile, have had to face the prospect of their alleged perpetrators never seeing justice.

Mass dismissals 

On Friday morning, Department 17 in the city’s criminal courthouse at 850 Bryant St. was filled with lawyers and their clients, all ready for trial. 

As a line of attorneys stood ready for their cases to be called, the bailiff repeatedly had to hush the chatter in the courtroom, where more than 30 people—many of them defendants—sat waiting. 

Deputy Public Defender Daniel Meyer approached the lectern with his client Emerson Deras-Gonzalez, who was charged with a DUI in 2020. Meyers indicated to Judge Victor Hwang that his client, who had already appeared six times in court, was ready for trial. 

“Are the people ready for trial?” asked Hwang. 

The people were not. 

Assistant Deputy District Attorney Amine Zreik read from a script that laid the blame on the court, pointing out that up until several weeks ago, the court had said it would waive all decisions in such cases until the outcome of the Raju litigation.

Despite his own protests, Zreik eventually dismissed the case. 

"The outcome would eventually be overturned on appeal based on the” defendant’s right to a speedy trial, Zreik said. "The people are not ready to proceed.”

Attorneys wait to have their cases heard in court.

California Penal Code 1382 defines the time a defendant has to wait for a fair and speedy trial and governs the remedy—which is dismissal in many cases—if the case goes beyond the legal time limit. In Deras-Gonzalez’s case, it was nearly 43 months past its one-month trial deadline.

Throughout the morning's proceedings, Hwang responded to prosecutors’ objections by explaining that the court's policy on backlogged cases had changed in mid-January, and both the district attorney and the public defender had been told as much. 

Hwang said in court that he sends each office lists of cases he plans to call for trial. 

The case was one of at least six dismissed that morning by the District Attorney's Office on grounds that prosecutors were not ready for trial or could not locate witnesses or that the victims in the case were not willing to cooperate after waiting years for the case to come to trial. 

Three people stand in court talking.

But a handful of other old cases were either sent to trial or continued again, in one case because the victim had come to court.

In the matter of Scott Riley, who faces a sexual battery charge, Hwang made an exception by again continuing the case, giving the district attorney more time to prepare for trial after the victim said she wanted the case to proceed. 

"I'm gonna give you 10 days to get ready for trial,” Hwang ruled.

Correction: A caption in this story was updated with the proper spelling of defendant Emerson Deras-Gonzale z 's name.

Jonah Owen Lamb can be reached at [email protected]

Filed Under

  • Undergraduate Students
  • Masters Students
  • PhD/Doctoral Students
  • Postdoctoral Scholars
  • Faculty & Staff
  • Families & Supporters
  • Prospective Students
  • Explore Your Interests / Self-Assessment
  • Build your Network / LinkedIn
  • Search for a Job / Internship
  • Create a Resume / Cover Letter
  • Prepare for an Interview
  • Negotiate an Offer
  • Prepare for Graduate School
  • Find Funding Opportunities
  • Prepare for the Academic Job Market (PhD Students Only)
  • Search for a Job or Internship
  • Advertising, Marketing, and Public Relations
  • Arts & Entertainment
  • Consulting & Financial Services
  • Engineering & Technology
  • Government, Law & Policy
  • Hospitality
  • Management & Human Resources
  • Non-Profit, Social Justice & Education
  • Retail & Consumer Services
  • BIPOC Students & Scholars
  • Disabled Students & Scholars
  • First-Generation Students & Scholars
  • Former Foster Youth
  • Formerly Incarcerated Students & Scholars
  • International Students & Scholars
  • LGBTQ+ Students & Scholars
  • Students & Scholars with Dependents
  • Transfer Students
  • Undocumented Students & Scholars
  • Women-Identifying Students & Scholars

Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

Court staff attorney i-ii (asbestos & ceqa).

  • Share This: Share Court Staff Attorney I-II (Asbestos & CEQA) on Facebook Share Court Staff Attorney I-II (Asbestos & CEQA) on LinkedIn Share Court Staff Attorney I-II (Asbestos & CEQA) on X

COURT STAFF ATTORNEY I-II

(Asbestos & CEQA)

The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, invites applications from qualified individuals interested in serving as Court Staff Attorney I-II, providing complex legal research and legal consultation for judicial officers. This recruitment will be used to fill one position in the Asbestos and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Department. Once appointed, however, the incumbent may be moved to other assignments as the needs of the Court dictate. The incumbent must be an attorney with professional legal experience as a member of the State Bar of California. An incumbent with more than two years of legal experience as a member of the State Bar of California may be appointed at the Court Staff Attorney II level.

This selection process is being conducted in accordance with San Francisco Superior Court Personnel Rule 4. An eligibility list will not be established.

FINAL FILING DATE: 4:00PM, February 28, 2024

COMPENSATION: Court Staff Attorney II

$4,584.10 to $5,572.28 biweekly ($119,186 to $144,879 annually)

Court Staff Attorney I

$3,772.02 to $4,584.10 biweekly ($98,072 to $119,186 annually)

The Court offers a generous benefits package including a variety of health and dental insurance plans, a contributory retirement plan, a deferred compensation savings program, paid vacation, sick leave, floating holidays, and holiday pay.

POSITION OVERVIEW

Essential Duties:

The Court Staff Attorney I-II incumbent is expected to perform the more complex professional legal work and research with minimal guidance and supervision. The following duties are typically performed:

Performs complex professional legal assignments and research for the Asbestos and CEQA Department.

Reviews and summarizes legal evidence, procedural history, and legal contentions in matters related to a variety of legal cases and Court calendars. Carefully reviews briefs in discovery and law and motion matters in complex asbestos actions (e.g., motions for summary judgment/adjudication, motions for preference, demurrers and motions to strike, motions to compel). Reviews motions, writ petitions and voluminous administrative records in CEQA actions.

Researches individual issues requested by the Department Judge. Researches and analyzes existing law. Researches legal authorities, including statutory and case law, appellate court decisions, and legislative history, using both traditional and computerized legal research methods. Meets with judicial officers and provides oral briefings on the results of research, as requested.

Advises the Department Judge regarding issues raised in informal discovery conferences and case management conferences.

Conducts ex parte hearings, questions the attorneys, and orally briefs the judge.

Responds to judicial officer inquiries on procedural and substantive issues during trials and pre-trial hearings, including motions, evidentiary objections, jury instructions, status of case authorities cited by counsel, and points of substantive law.

Prepares memoranda for matters researched, summarizing background, identifying and analyzing factual and legal issues raised in CEQA actions, and recommending disposition of legal issues for use by judicial officers.

Reviews the Local Rules applicable to the Asbestos and CEQA Department, and drafts proposed amendments.

Drafts rulings for Court cases, including minute orders, formal orders, tentative decisions, statements of decision, and judgments for review and use by judicial officers. Reviews, drafts and edits orders in CEQA actions.

Drafts correspondence to counsel and other concerned parties regarding matters pending before the Court.

Trains and supervises law student externs as needed.

Working Conditions: Work is performed in an office and courtroom environment; continuous contact with judicial officers, executive management, litigants, attorneys, other staff and the public. Initial assignment will be at the Civic Center Courthouse.

Physical Requirements: Sit for extended periods; frequently stand and walk; normal manual dexterity and eye-hand coordination; lift and move objects weighing up to 25 lbs.; corrected hearing and vision to normal range; verbal communication; use of office equipment, including computer, telephone, calculator, copiers, and FAX.

REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS

Current membership in the State Bar of California.

Two or more years of full-time professional legal work experience as a member of the State Bar of California is required for the Court Staff Attorney II level.

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS

Knowledge of:

  • Principles of civil litigation as well as administrative law.
  • California codes and statutes applicable to civil law, Code of Civil Procedure, Evidence Code, California Rules of Court, San Francisco Local Rules, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines.
  • Judicial procedures and the rules of evidence.
  • Legal research methods.
  • Interviewing techniques.
  • Computers and software used in professional legal work.

Ability to:

  • Perform a wide scope of professional legal and legal research work.
  • Analyze facts and apply legal precedents and principles to assigned legal review and research work.
  • Analyze issues with an adjudicatory viewpoint, rather than that of an advocate.
  • Review lengthy, complicated briefs and identify the relevant issues.
  • Provide sound legal advice to judicial officers, when requested.
  • Communicate effectively and efficiently, both orally and in writing.
  • Prepare and present a variety of special reports.
  • Operate a computer and use appropriate software in the performance of professional legal work.
  • Effectively represent the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, with the public, petitioners, law enforcement agencies, and other government jurisdictions.
  • Maintain confidential information when required by legal or ethical standards.
  • Establish and maintain cooperative working relationships; effectively interact with judges and court staff.
  • Work independently while also working collaboratively with the judicial officer presiding over the department.

HOW TO APPLY

Interested individuals must apply online and include a valid email address where the applicant can receive future correspondence regarding this position. Applicants must submit ALL the following items:

  • Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, online employment application (fully completed). The link to the online application is available on the Court’s website at https://sf.courts.ca.gov/general-information/human-resourcesemployment
  • Statement of qualifications, limited to one page, only explaining why the applicant is interested in the position and qualified to perform the duties described herein. This one-page statement should succinctly describe the relative education and experience that is applicable to this position.
  • Writing sample not to exceed 5 pages.

The preparation of the application, including the resume, statement of qualifications, and writing sample, is very important to the selection process. It is recommended that applicants review the information in this announcement and on the application very carefully. Once the application has been submitted, it cannot be corrected, changed, or resubmitted. All applications must be submitted online by the final filing date and time indicated in this job announcement.

SELECTION PROCESS

Initial Screening:

Complete application packages received by the final filing date and time will be evaluated to determine if the applicants meet the minimum qualifications. The Court will further evaluate these documents and may interview only those applicants it deems may best meet the needs of the Court. Not all applicants will receive an interview.

Oral Interview:

If necessary, selected applicants may be interviewed to determine their relative knowledge, abilities, and skill levels in job related areas. If interviews are scheduled, it is anticipated that they will be held in March 2024.

Qualified applicants with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in the selection process should complete the relevant section on the employment application.

OTHER APPOINTMENT INFORMATION

Employment is subject to security clearance. Any false statement or omission of material fact may cause forfeiture of employment. Information presented on employment applications, resumes, and attachments and during the selection process is subject to verification. Employees are prohibited from engaging in activities which conflict with the interests of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

Immigration laws require that all employees hired after November 6, 1986, must provide proof of work eligibility. At the time of appointment to a position, all applicants must possess a valid Social Security number and will be required to present original documents which verify citizenship or legal alien status as well as identity (such as a social security card and driver’s license, or a green card and driver’s license, or a valid U.S. passport).

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER. APPLICANTS SHALL NOT BE FAVORED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, GENDER, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, CITIZENSHIP, AGE, MARITAL STATUS, PHYSICAL DISABILITY, MENTAL DISABILITY, MEDICAL CONDITION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENETIC INFORMATION, UNION ACTIVITY, POLITICAL AFFILIATION, OR OTHER NON-MERIT FACTOR.

For questions on the above information, contact the Human Resources Office

of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco,

(415) 551-0381.

This announcement and the online application are available at

https://sf.courts.ca.gov/general-information/human-resourcesemployment

IMAGES

  1. San Francisco Superior: 2023 Judicial Assignments

    judicial assignments san francisco

  2. San Francisco Superior Court: January 2022 (Amended) Judicial

    judicial assignments san francisco

  3. San Francisco Superior: Court Updates

    judicial assignments san francisco

  4. San Francisco Superior Court’s judge positions are now all filled

    judicial assignments san francisco

  5. San Francisco County Superior

    judicial assignments san francisco

  6. Fillable Online courtinfo ca JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

    judicial assignments san francisco

VIDEO

  1. Judicial Review

  2. SC On Duties Of State vis- a- vis Free Legal Aid And Fair Trial || Legal Helpline

COMMENTS

  1. Judicial Assignments

    Judicial Assignments Find department assignments or telephone numbers for judges. Judicial Assignments Effective January 16, 2024; Judicial Department Assignment Effective January 16, 2024 ... Superior Court of California County of San Francisco. Judicial Branch of California.

  2. Home

    Feb 14, 2024 San Francisco Superior Court Seeks Applicants for Civil Grand Jury Read more Feb 02, 2024 Classroom to the Courtroom Webinar Read more Jan 29, 2024 The Court Hires its First Licensed Voice Writer as a Court Reporter Jan 16, 2024 Presiding Judge Anne-Christine Massullo and Court Executive Officer Brandon E. Riley Urge Support of SB 662

  3. Governor Newsom Announces Judicial Appointments 12.7.23

    SACRAMENTO - Governor Gavin Newsom today announced his nomination of two Court of Appeal Justices: Judge Monique Langhorne Wilson as an Associate Justice of the First District Court of Appeal, Division One and Aimee Feinberg as an Associate Justice of the Third District Court of Appeal.

  4. Directory of Judges

    Judicial Profiles Previous Presiding Judge Messages Effective January 1, 2024 Hon. Elizabeth K. Lee, Presiding Judge Department 17, Courtroom 2K 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 261-5117 [email protected] Hon. Stephanie G. Garratt, Assistant Presiding Judge Department 9, Courtroom 2L 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063

  5. San Francisco Superior Court's judge positions are now all filled

    They are judges Teresa Caffese and Eric Fleming, who were appointed in December 2017, judges Richard Darwin, Christine Van Aken, Rita Lin, Michael McNaughton and Alexandra Gordon, who were...

  6. San Francisco Superior Court: January 2022 (Amended) Judicial Assignments

    The judicial assignments have been updated and will be effective Monday, January 24, 2022, subject to amendment based on retirement, judicial appointment, or other needs of the court. Moving day is Friday, January 21, 2022, for those changing courtrooms and chambers. A memorandum with instructions for moving day will be forthcoming from the staff.

  7. Judge Charles S. Crompton

    Hon. Charles S. Crompton Judge of the Superior Court of San Francisco County Current Term: 9/15/23 - 9/14/26 Membership: Voting member appointed by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero Internal Committees: Judicial Branch Budget Committee, Rules Committee. Judge Charles S. Crompton was appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2014 and currently oversees the behavioral health and mental health diversion ...

  8. PDF Temporary Assigned Judges Program

    What is the authorization for judicial assignments? Article VI, section 6(e) of the California Constitution provides that the Chief Justice "shall seek to expedite judicial business and to equalize the work of the judges." To accomplish this, the Chief Justice may provide for the temporary assignment of any judge to a court.

  9. San Francisco

    Presiding Judge Garrett L. Wong today announced new judicial assignments that take effect January 22, 2019, as follows: See complete notice at: https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/JudAssignJan19.pdf?1548801116703 Categorized in: Court Notices << previous next >>

  10. 2014 Judicial Assignments

    San Francisco Superior Court Presiding Judge Cynthia Ming-mei Lee has announced new judicial assignments that take effect January 21, 2014. Click on the document below to download the assignments (PDF document, 130KB) Previous Post It Starts With a Day! Next Post

  11. Civil Docketing Assignments

    Effective September 1, 2021, civil docketing assignments in all divisions will be made according to the terminal case digit, i.e., the last digit of the case number. (For example: _ _-CV-_ _ _ _ 1 ). Case assignments will be made as shown in the following table.

  12. Case Information

    On this site, you can look up Unlimited/Limited Civil, Family Law, Probate, and Small Claims cases by case number or by case name for cases filed from 1987 to present. For all other cases contact those court departments directly. MORE » Civil Case Query: Access Now Civil UD and Rental Debit Case Query: Access Now Was this helpful?

  13. San Francisco County, California Judge Directory

    Tamara L. Mosbarger. Butte County Superior Court. Philip J. Moscone. San Francisco County Superior Court. John E. Munter. San Francisco County Superior Court. 1 2 Last. Explore our comprehensive directory of judges in San Francisco County, California on Trellis.Law. Gain insights into judge profiles, analytics, recent cases, and rulings at the ...

  14. Appellate Division

    contact information Appellate Division Phone Numbers Unlimited Jurisdiction Appeals: (415) 551-3671 Limited Jurisdiction and Small Claims Appeals: (415) 551-3891 General Line: (415) 551-5963 Civic Center Courthouse 400 McAllister St. Room 103, Window 26 San Francisco, CA 94102-4514 Directions Was this helpful?

  15. San Francisco Superior Court: Amended Judicial Assignments

    The following amended Judicial Assignments are effective Monday, May 15, 2023, and are subject to further amendment based on retirement, judicial appointment, or other needs of the court. CHANGES ARE IN THE LINK BELOW. You can view the current notice here. First Legal, your premier litigation support provider.

  16. Biography

    The San Francisco Court has 52 judicial positions. While other counties differ, our longstanding philosophy has been that judges can better serve the community when they are cross-trained in various areas of the law. According, most San Francisco judges will rotate assignments throughout their career.

  17. Civil Case Coordination

    Contact Info Civil Case Coordination Unit 415-865-7630 [email protected] Defining a Complex Civil Action Rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court defines a complex civil action. If the actions are complex, a petition is filed with the Chair of the Judicial Council. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.)

  18. Hundreds of San Francisco criminal cases dismissed after years of

    Since mid-January, the San Francisco district attorney has been forced on a daily basis to dismiss dozens of years-old criminal cases that had become mired in the judicial system as a result of earlier Covid restrictions.

  19. Civil Case Management

    Hours of Operation: Monday through Friday (except Court holidays) 8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., closed 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. If you need to contact the Civil Case Management unit, please call (415) 551-3872 with your case number, case name, judgment type, and status request. Calendars that are heard in Department 610:

  20. Quidachay Announces S.F. Judicial Assignments

    For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email [email protected] for prices or call 949-702-5390. To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email [email protected]

  21. Home

    Judicial Assignments Order Criminal Supervising Judge Change. Dec 07, 2023 2024 Judicial Assignments Order Commissioner Change. More News. Other Services. Career Opportunities ... South San Francisco, CA 94080 United States. Southern Branch: Hall of Justice and Records 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 United States.

  22. Court Staff Attorney I-II (Asbestos & CEQA)

    The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, invites applications from qualified individuals interested in serving as Court Staff Attorney I-II, providing complex legal research and legal consultation for judicial officers. ... however, the incumbent may be moved to other assignments as the needs of the Court dictate. The ...

  23. Superior Court of San Francisco: Presiding Judge Announces ...

    Superior Court of San Francisco: Presiding Judge Announces Amendments to Judicial Assignments Effective May 15, 2023. Please find the amended Judicial Assignments effective May 15, 2023, and are subject to further amendment based on retirement, judicial appointment, or other needs.

  24. Primary Assignment Orientation/Experienced Assignment Courses, RFP# CRS

    The Judicial Council of California seeks proposals from hotels for sleeping rooms for October 13-18, 2024 or October 20-25, 2024 in San Francisco, California. Proposals must be received by END OF DAY Pacific Time, February 29, 2024.

  25. Presiding Judge-Master Calendar

    Master Calendar (trial assignments) 9:30 a.m. Monday (and subsequent days as necessary) Motion Calendars (motions to continue, advance, specially set, etc.) 9:30 a.m. Tuesday and Wednesday (except if Monday is a holiday, you may not calendar until Wednesday) Fee Waiver Calendar 9:30 a.m. Wednesday (Parties may appear by Zoom for this hearing)

  26. Criminal court backlog: Hundreds of San Francisco cases dismissed

    San Francisco Superior Court, which reopened in June 2021, until recently continued to justify not calling old cases to trial, citing the long-over Covid emergency. This was done even though the state judicial council ended emergency Covid orders allowing remote hearings, extended deadlines and other rule changes in 2022.

  27. Court Staff Attorney I-II (Asbestos & CEQA)

    The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, invites applications from qualified individuals interested in serving as Court Staff Attorney I-II, providing complex legal research and legal consultation for judicial officers. ... however, the incumbent may be moved to other assignments as the needs of the Court dictate. The ...

  28. County of San Francisco

    The following judicial assignments are efective Monday, January 24, 2022, subject to amendment based on retirement, judicial appointment or other needs of the court. Moving day is Friday, January 21, 2022 for those changing courtrooms and chambers. A memorandum with instructions for moving day will be orthcoming from staf. CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE