An analysis of Los Angeles County trial court rulings reveals how judges approach conflicting appellate decisions, and what attorneys can learn from their reasoning.
On January 28, 2026, the Hon. Peter Hernandez of the Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that an employee could pursue a representative claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) without bringing an individual claim.
Just a few weeks later, across the same courthouse, the Hon. Theresa Traber reached the opposite conclusion, resting her decision on a different assessment of the competing appellate authorities.
For the employees, the difference determines whether their claims remain in court or face arbitration. For the attorneys, the difference presents a familiar challenge with an added complication: anticipating how a judge will rule when appellate courts disagree on the law itself.
When appellate precedent conflicts, attorneys must first determine which authority binds the trial court. In California, Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court holds that a trial court can and must choose between conflicting applicable appellate decisions. A judge may assess competing statutory interpretations, pleadings, and procedural circumstances. Prior trial court rulings are not a substitute for controlling law, but they can show how an assigned judge has previously reasoned through an unsettled issue. Trellis’s original research examines those patterns in Los Angeles County.
Why trial judges can reach different conclusions when appellate decisions conflict
Two conflicting appellate decisions sit at the center of the dispute, both from California’s Second District Court of Appeal.
In Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting (2024), the court held that PAGA standing depends on whether an employee suffered the alleged violations, not whether the employee pursues an individual claim alongside a representative one. In Leeper v. Shipt (2024), a different panel focused on the statute’s use of “and” to describe actions brought on behalf of the employee and others, interpreting it to require both individual and representative claims.
The split in authority allows each trial judge to choose which interpretation to apply. This discretion is well established in California law. In Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that when appellate decisions conflict, a trial court “can and must make a choice.”
What prior trial court rulings reveal about unsettled law
For a litigator, the discretion afforded to trial judges turns a research question into a forecasting problem. Appellate case law tells you that the law is split. It doesn’t tell you what will happen on your motion, in your department, during your hearing. Finding that answer requires looking to prior trial court rulings, which are often available online for a limited time before disappearing from public view.
Using Trellis data, we retrieved and reviewed Los Angeles County tentative rulings issued since April 16, 2025, when the California Supreme Court granted review of Leeper v. Shipt. The search returned eleven rulings citing both Leeper and Balderas. The analysis covered ten orders from ten different judges, each read in full. In Ybarra v. Visions Treatment Centers, the court cited both decisions but resolved the issue based on a post-dispute arbitration agreement rather than choosing between them. This is an illustrative set of rulings identified through the stated search, not a representative sample of every California judge or PAGA case.
Several patterns emerge from these rulings.
- There is no consensus. Among the ten Los Angeles Superior Court orders identified through Trellis, five judges followed the Balderas line, three followed Leeper, and two avoided resolving the split.
- Judges pick decision rules, not sides. Judges Hernandez and Pánuco emphasized statutory interpretation. Judge Traber weighed the risk of wasted judicial resources if the Supreme Court reversed. Judges Westfahl Kong, Gelfound, and Boxer examined the pleadings to determine whether an individual claim existed.
- The disagreement extends to procedural decisions. Judge Traber stayed proceedings pending arbitration or the Supreme Court’s ruling. Judge Pánuco declined a stay, citing the age of the case.
- A judge’s method travels. Judge Traber applied the same Auto Equity principle to a separate appellate conflict over arbitration agreement authentication, offering a glimpse of how she approaches unsettled law.
How attorneys can research conflicting precedent in trial courts
- Name the fork and its start date. Unsettled law has a beginning: a conflicting appellate decision or a grant of review. Use it as your date filter.
- Search your venue for the competing authorities. Filter by county and date, and search for the cases on each side of the split.
- Read for the rule, not the result. Note which authority each judge followed and what actually decided it: merits, risk, pleading, or timing.
- Narrow to your judge. Look at how that judge has handled earlier splits, then compare with the department next door.
How to use prior rulings in litigation strategy
The findings can shape your strategy. If your judge treats splits as merits questions, brief the statute. If the judge weighs risk, show what your preferred ruling would cost if the Supreme Court disagrees. If the judge focuses on pleadings, examine the complaint closely. Plaintiffs should draft accordingly; defendants should check what was actually pleaded before moving to compel. And where a judge has preferred to wait, a continuance or stay may be more attainable than a ruling.
They also change what you tell the client. “The law is unsettled” describes the problem. “Of ten recent rulings, five went one way, three the other, and your judge has handled similar splits this way” begins to answer it.
The California Supreme Court heard argument in Leeper v. Shipt on November 3, 2026; as of November 12, a merits decision remains pending. But what about the many other unsettled legal questions? Until higher courts resolve them, prior trial court rulings can help attorneys understand how judges are interpreting competing authorities and why. See the California Supreme Court’s November 3, 2026 oral argument materials.
FAQ
The answer depends on the jurisdiction and the hierarchy of the courts involved. A trial court must apply controlling law from a higher court, but conflicting decisions from courts of equal authority can leave a question unresolved. In California, Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court recognizes that a trial court must choose between conflicting applicable Court of Appeal decisions.
The disagreement between Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting and Leeper v. Shipt over representative-only PAGA claims illustrates the practical consequences. In the Los Angeles County sample Trellis examined, judges adopted different interpretations or avoided deciding the conflict.
That is why attorneys should research not only the appellate authorities but also how their assigned trial judge has addressed them.
Judges first identify the applicable binding authorities. Where competing appellate interpretations are available, they may evaluate statutory text, the reasoning of the decisions, the pleadings, and the procedural posture.
In Trellis’s Los Angeles County analysis, Judges Hernandez and Pánuco emphasized statutory interpretation, while Judge Traber considered the practical implications of a possible Supreme Court reversal. Other judges examined whether the complaint actually asserted an individual PAGA claim.
These are examples from the reviewed orders, not universal criteria. Reading the rulings themselves helps attorneys distinguish a judge’s legal reasoning from the bare result of a motion.
Start with the assigned judge, the specific disputed legal issue, the relevant motion, and the competing authorities. Examine whether the judge previously addressed those authorities, which reasoning the judge adopted, and whether the order turned on another ground.
Trellis provides access to state trial court records, rulings, and judicial research. An accessible starting point is Trellis Chat, where attorneys can ask a plain-English question and review a sourced response, then follow the underlying records. A useful question is: ‘How has Judge [name] handled motions raising conflicting interpretations of [issue]? Identify the orders and explain the reasoning.’
For guidance on asking effective research questions, see What Is Trellis Chat? and No Assembly Required: Prompting Strategies for Judicial Research.
Yes, especially when the applicable law is unsettled and different interpretations are permissible. The article’s Los Angeles County examples show two Superior Court judges arriving at different conclusions on representative-only PAGA claims after considering competing appellate authorities.
In the ten-order sample reviewed by Trellis, five judges followed Balderas, three followed Leeper, and two did not resolve the split.
That variation does not mean outcomes are arbitrary: the legal arguments, pleadings, procedural posture, and assigned judge’s reasoning matter. Attorneys can use prior trial court orders to investigate those differences, while avoiding the assumption that a previous ruling dictates the next one.
Identify the decisions on each side of the conflict, then search state trial court orders for both citations and narrow by venue, date, judge, and motion type.
Trellis Chat offers an approachable entry point: ask, for example, ‘Find Los Angeles County trial court rulings discussing both Balderas and Leeper; identify the judge, motion, outcome, and reasoning, and cite the underlying orders.’ Review the cited sources rather than relying only on a summary.
Trellis’s Smart Search and its California tentative-rulings tools can also support more targeted filtering and document review. This is especially useful when court-hosted tentative rulings are available for only a limited period. For additional guidance, see What Is Trellis Chat? and the guide to California tentative rulings in Smart Search.
A motion should identify the competing decisions, explain the applicable rules of precedent, and show why the court should adopt the interpretation supported by the statute, legal reasoning, and facts. Address unfavorable authority directly. Then evaluate whether procedural details, including how claims were pleaded or a possible stay, could affect the disposition.
Trellis’s study shows why that last step matters: some judges emphasized statutory interpretation, others pleadings or procedural risk. Prior trial court rulings can help attorneys anticipate these arguments and tailor the brief, but the brief should lead with controlling authority rather than treating other trial court orders as binding law.
Trellis can help attorneys locate related motions, filings, and decisions for context. See Researching Motions Filed in State Court for a practical walkthrough.
Trial court orders generally are not binding precedent for different cases in the way precedential appellate opinions can be. Their persuasive value and permissible use depend on local law and procedural context. They can nonetheless reveal how a particular judge has reasoned about a recurring issue or handled conflicting authority.
Distinguish tentative rulings from final orders: a tentative ruling may change after a hearing. Trellis makes past state trial court documents and California tentative rulings searchable, allowing attorneys to evaluate the reasoning, motion, and procedural context rather than treating a result as a rule that must be followed.
For more about the available ruling records, see the California tentative rulings guide. Always verify the status and proper use of any ruling before citing it.
Prior orders can reveal which authorities judges have found persuasive, which factual or pleading distinctions mattered, and whether the judge considered delaying a decision while higher-court review was pending.
In the Trellis study, different judges approached the same PAGA conflict through statutory analysis, pleadings, and procedural considerations. Attorneys can use that evidence to refine arguments, investigate the assigned judge’s history, assess whether a stay is worth seeking, and give clients a better explanation of uncertainty.
Trellis combines access to state trial court rulings with judicial research and analytics; Trellis Chat can make the initial research easier through natural-language questions and links to source records. For more on interpreting judicial history, see The Judge Biography: Reading Between the Lines and Researching Motion Outcomes by Judge. Historical patterns inform strategy, not guarantees of outcomes.