Judge Teresa P. Magno

Judge Teresa P. Magno serves on the Los Angeles Superior Court at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, having been elected to the bench with her term beginning January 5, 2015. She is the daughter of an anti-Marcos activist, a biographical detail that has been noted in public coverage of her election. Her election was covered by Inquirer.net in July 2014, reflecting community recognition of her ascent to the bench. The most substantive public data point available regarding her judicial decision-making is her May 2022 ruling in a high-profile case involving a Tesla operating on autopilot that was involved in a fatal crash in Gardena, California. In that ruling, Judge Magno determined that the driver would face trial, a decision that placed criminal accountability on the human operator of a semi-autonomous vehicle rather than treating autopilot engagement as a complete defense. This ruling demonstrates a willingness to engage with novel, technology-driven legal questions and to apply traditional standards of criminal responsibility to emerging automotive technology contexts. Beyond this single documented ruling, no analyzed decisions, attorney observations, or additional case data are available in the current dataset. Attorneys should treat the insights derived here as limited in scope and supplement this profile with direct research into her current docket and any recent published rulings.

The one documented ruling from Judge Magno's record — the Tesla autopilot criminal trial ruling — signals that she does not accept technological novelty as a basis for avoiding established legal standards. Attorneys arguing before her in cases involving technology, automation, or novel fact patterns should ground their arguments in well-established legal principles rather than relying on the uniqueness of the technology to carry the argument. Frame technology-related issues within conventional legal frameworks. Given the absence of additional ruling data, attorneys should conduct independent research into Judge Magno's recent decisions through the Los Angeles Superior Court's online docket and services such as Trellis or CourtListener before any appearance. Do not rely solely on this profile. Prepare thoroughly on procedural compliance, as no data exists to suggest any leniency in that area, and general best practices for Stanley Mosk Courthouse appearances should be followed. Because no attorney observations are available, there is no documented pattern regarding her courtroom demeanor, oral argument preferences, or motion practice tendencies. Attorneys should arrive prepared for a range of judicial styles and be ready to answer substantive questions on both facts and law without advance knowledge of her specific preferences.

• critical

  Research Current Docket and Recent Rulings Independently

  The dataset contains only one documented ruling. Before any appearance, attorneys must independently research her recent decisions through the LA Superior Court docket, Trellis, or similar services to build a more complete picture of her current judicial tendencies.

• important

  Prepare Technology Arguments Within Traditional Legal Frameworks

  If your case involves technology, automation, or novel fact patterns, anchor all arguments in established legal doctrine. The Tesla ruling shows she applies conventional legal standards to new technology contexts.

• important

  Review Stanley Mosk Courthouse Local Rules and Dept. Procedures

  In the absence of judge-specific behavioral data, strict compliance with local rules and any posted departmental guidelines for Judge Magno's courtroom is essential to avoid procedural missteps.

• important

  Prepare for Substantive Oral Engagement

  With no data indicating she avoids oral argument or prefers tentative rulings without discussion, prepare to address both factual and legal questions thoroughly at any hearing.

• ›Comply strictly with all Stanley Mosk Courthouse and departmental procedural requirements, as no data exists suggesting any flexibility on procedural compliance.
• ›Be prepared to address the substantive merits of novel or technology-related legal questions directly, as the record shows she engages with and decides such issues on the merits.
• ›Do not assume that the novelty or complexity of a factual scenario will itself resolve a legal question in your favor — ground all arguments in established legal standards.