Judge Mark K. Hanasono

Judge Mark K. Hanasono served on the Los Angeles County Superior Court at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse following his appointment by Governor Jerry Brown on December 27, 2013. He served in that capacity until June 25, 2025, when he was confirmed to the California Second District Court of Appeal following a nomination by Governor Newsom in May 2025. A June 2025 Daily Journal profile noted that he approached the appellate transition with both reluctance and anticipation, suggesting a measured and reflective disposition toward judicial role changes. As of his elevation to the appellate bench, Judge Hanasono is no longer presiding over matters at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Attorneys researching his superior court record should be aware that no analyzed rulings, attorney observations, or ingested content are available in this dataset to characterize his trial court judicial philosophy, ruling tendencies, or procedural preferences with specificity. The only substantive post-appointment data point available is a December 2025 Daily Journal reference to a Second District Court of Appeal ruling limiting automaker use of dealer arbitration clauses — a ruling issued after Hanasono joined that court. This single data point reflects appellate-level activity, not his superior court conduct, and cannot be used to draw conclusions about his trial court behavior.

Because Judge Hanasono has been elevated to the Second District Court of Appeal and no longer presides at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, attorneys with pending superior court matters should confirm the current assigned judge for their department before preparing any judge-specific strategy. Relying on intelligence about Judge Hanasono for a Stanley Mosk superior court appearance would be misplaced given his confirmed departure from that bench as of June 25, 2025. For attorneys appearing before Judge Hanasono at the appellate level, the one documented substantive data point — a ruling limiting automaker use of dealer arbitration clauses — suggests engagement with consumer protection and arbitration enforceability issues. However, this single ruling is insufficient to characterize a broader appellate philosophy, and attorneys should conduct independent research into Second District opinions authored or joined by Judge Hanasono after June 2025. Given the Daily Journal's characterization of his approach to the appellate role as combining reluctance and anticipation, attorneys appearing before him at the appellate level should be prepared for a jurist who takes the transition to appellate review seriously and who may bring a trial court practitioner's perspective to procedural and evidentiary questions.

• critical

  Confirm Current Assigned Judge for Your Department

  Judge Hanasono left the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in June 2025. Before any appearance, confirm the current presiding judge for your assigned department through the court's official assignment records.

• critical

  Research Post-June 2025 Second District Opinions

  If appearing before Judge Hanasono at the appellate level, research opinions he has authored or joined since joining the Second District Court of Appeal in June 2025 to identify emerging patterns in his appellate reasoning.

• important

  Review Arbitration Clause Jurisprudence

  The one documented substantive ruling associated with Judge Hanasono post-elevation involves limiting automaker use of dealer arbitration clauses. Attorneys with arbitration-related appellate matters should review this ruling and related Second District authority.

• Nice

  Monitor Daily Journal for Additional Coverage

  The Daily Journal has profiled Judge Hanasono at least twice in 2025. Monitoring that publication for additional coverage or opinions attributed to him will help build a more complete intelligence picture over time.

• ›Confirm the correct venue — Judge Hanasono is now at the Second District Court of Appeal, not the Stanley Mosk Courthouse superior court.
• ›When appearing before him at the appellate level, be prepared for a jurist who brings trial court experience to appellate review and who values procedural precision.
• ›No specific courtroom behavioral data is available from his superior court tenure; defer to general Second District Court of Appeal protocols and standing orders.