Judge Andrew Esbenshade

Judge Andrew Esbenshade is a relatively new addition to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, having been appointed by Governor Gavin Newsom in August 2023 to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Judge Steven Kleifield. He presides in Department 26 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, handling a broad civil docket that includes arbitration matters, labor and employment disputes, torts, property, commercial litigation, and consumer cases. Because his appointment is recent and no analyzed rulings or attorney observations are yet available in this dataset, assessments of his judicial philosophy must be drawn primarily from his pre-bench career trajectory and professional background. Esbenshade's career is notable for its depth in complex civil and white-collar litigation at elite national firms. He clerked for the Hon. Mariana Pfaelzer in the Central District of California — a federal court known for rigorous procedural standards — which likely instilled strong habits around evidentiary precision, thorough briefing, and respect for procedural rules. His subsequent partnerships at Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, Boies Schiller Flexner, Durie Tangri, and Morrison & Foerster reflect a career spent in high-stakes, sophisticated litigation environments. His specialization in white-collar defense at Durie Tangri suggests comfort with complex factual records, nuanced legal arguments, and careful attention to constitutional and statutory construction. Given his BigLaw and boutique litigation background, attorneys should expect a judge who is well-prepared, analytically rigorous, and unlikely to be impressed by superficial advocacy. His federal clerkship background suggests he may apply federal-court-style expectations around briefing quality and oral argument preparation even in the state court context. As his tenure grows and rulings accumulate, this profile will sharpen considerably.

Attorneys appearing before Judge Esbenshade should prioritize the quality and precision of their written submissions above all else. His background as a federal law clerk and his career at sophisticated litigation firms — including Boies Schiller Flexner and Morrison & Foerster — signals a judge who reads briefs carefully and expects arguments to be legally grounded, factually precise, and logically organized. Sloppy citations, unsupported factual assertions, or boilerplate legal standards are likely to undermine credibility quickly. Lead with your strongest legal argument and support it with the most relevant authority; do not bury the key issue in a lengthy recitation of background facts. Given his white-collar defense background at Durie Tangri, Judge Esbenshade likely has particular sophistication around issues of intent, evidentiary standards, and the interplay between civil and criminal liability. In labor and employment or commercial matters, attorneys should be prepared to engage at a granular level on the statutory and regulatory framework rather than relying on policy-level arguments alone. His experience on both sides of complex disputes means he will likely anticipate counterarguments — address them proactively in your briefs and at oral argument rather than waiting to be challenged. For arbitration matters, which appear prominently in his docket, attorneys should be well-versed in both the Federal Arbitration Act and California arbitration law, as his federal clerkship background may make him attentive to preemption issues and the scope of arbitrability. In all matters, demonstrate respect for the court's time by being concise, organized, and ready to answer questions directly without evasion.

• critical

  Audit Brief Quality Against Federal Standards

  Before filing any motion or opposition, review your brief as if it were being submitted to a federal district court. Check citation accuracy, logical flow of argument, and whether every factual assertion is supported by the record. Judge Esbenshade's clerkship background makes this a critical baseline.

• critical

  Research Arbitration Law Thoroughly If Applicable

  If your matter involves arbitration — whether a motion to compel, to vacate, or to confirm — prepare a comprehensive analysis of both FAA and California arbitration law, including preemption issues. This is a prominent area of his docket and likely one where he has developed views.

• critical

  Anticipate and Address Counterarguments in Briefing

  Given his litigation background, Judge Esbenshade will likely identify the weaknesses in your position before you do. Proactively address the opposing side's strongest arguments in your opening brief rather than waiting for reply. This signals credibility and thoroughness.

• important

  Monitor Emerging Rulings on Trellis and CourtDrive

  As a judge appointed in 2023, his ruling record is still developing. Regularly check Trellis, CourtDrive, and the LASC online system for new tentative rulings and final orders from Department 26 to build a real-time picture of his tendencies before your hearing date.

• important

  Prepare for Substantive Oral Argument Questions

  Do not treat oral argument as a formality. His background suggests he may ask probing questions about the legal framework, the factual record, or the implications of a ruling. Prepare a one-page outline of your three strongest points and anticipate at least five difficult questions.

• Nice

  Review Labor and Employment Statutory Framework

  Labor and employment matters are a significant part of his docket. Ensure you have a command of the relevant California Labor Code provisions, FEHA framework, and any applicable wage-and-hour regulations before appearing on such matters.

• ›Arrive early and be fully prepared — his federal clerkship background suggests a low tolerance for attorneys who are unprepared or who waste the court's time with disorganized presentations.
• ›Be concise and direct when answering questions from the bench; do not evade or over-qualify responses, as a former litigator will recognize deflection immediately.
• ›Treat opposing counsel with professional courtesy — attorneys from elite litigation environments typically expect and model collegial but vigorous advocacy, and unprofessional conduct is likely to reflect poorly.
• ›Have your record citations ready at oral argument; if you reference a document, declaration, or exhibit, be prepared to provide the exact page and line number without fumbling.
• ›Do not over-argue a point once the judge has signaled understanding or skepticism — read the room and pivot efficiently rather than repeating the same argument in different words.