Judge Nicole M. Heeseman

Judge Nicole M. Heeseman presides in Department S25 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, having been appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court by Governor Jerry Brown on November 2, 2017. Her appointment filled the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge John P. Doyle. Her path to the bench is notable for its deep roots within the Los Angeles Superior Court system itself: she began as a research attorney in 1999, advanced to supervising research attorney from 2001 to 2006, then to managing research attorney from 2006 to 2014, and served as a court commissioner from 2014 until her judicial appointment. This career arc — spanning nearly two decades of internal court work before elevation to the bench — reflects an attorney who built her legal foundation through judicial research and court administration rather than private litigation practice. Department S25 handles matters including collections, premises liability, personal injury, and automobile cases. A notable case from March 2026 resulted in a jury awarding $1.4 million for a golf course injury caused by a mower-flung ball, indicating that her courtroom has seen plaintiff-favorable jury verdicts in premises liability matters. Judge Heeseman is registered without party preference. No ruling analyses or attorney observations are currently available in the data set, which limits the depth of behavioral pattern analysis that can be offered at this time.

Given Judge Heeseman's extensive background as a research attorney and supervising research attorney for the Los Angeles Superior Court, attorneys should expect a judge who is highly attuned to the quality and precision of legal research and written submissions. Her years of reviewing and producing judicial research mean she will read briefs carefully and notice gaps in legal authority, unsupported assertions, or sloppy citation practices. Attorneys should invest significant effort in the quality of their written work product before appearing in Department S25. Her department handles premises liability, personal injury, automobile, and collections matters. The $1.4 million jury verdict in the golf course injury case demonstrates that her courtroom has produced substantial plaintiff verdicts in premises liability contexts. Defense counsel in similar matters should prepare thorough causation and damages arguments. Plaintiff counsel should ensure liability and damages evidence is well-organized and clearly presented to the jury. Because no attorney observation data is currently available, attorneys are strongly encouraged to review recent docket activity in Department S25 and speak with colleagues who have appeared before Judge Heeseman to supplement this analysis.

• critical

  Review Recent Department S25 Docket Entries

  Because no ruling analyses are available in this data set, attorneys must independently pull recent tentative rulings, minute orders, and docket activity from Department S25 to identify current procedural preferences and ruling tendencies.

• critical

  Ensure Briefs Are Thoroughly Researched and Cited

  Judge Heeseman's 15-year career as a research attorney means she has deep familiarity with how legal research is conducted and presented. Every legal proposition in submitted briefs should be supported by precise, current authority.

• important

  Prepare Comprehensive Premises Liability Evidence

  Department S25 handles premises liability matters and has produced a $1.4 million jury verdict in this area. Both plaintiff and defense counsel should prepare detailed liability, causation, and damages presentations for any premises liability matter.

• important

  Consult Colleagues Who Have Appeared in Department S25

  Given the absence of attorney observation data, firsthand accounts from attorneys who have recently appeared before Judge Heeseman are the most reliable supplement to this profile.

• important

  Confirm Local Rules and Department-Specific Procedures

  Judge Heeseman's background in court administration suggests strict adherence to procedural requirements. Confirm any department-specific standing orders or scheduling requirements before filing or appearing.

• ›Adhere strictly to all procedural deadlines and filing requirements — Judge Heeseman's career in court administration reflects deep familiarity with procedural rules and their importance.
• ›Ensure all legal arguments in oral argument are grounded in cited authority, consistent with the written submissions, given her research attorney background.
• ›Be prepared for a judge who has read the briefs thoroughly — do not repeat arguments already made in writing without adding substantive value.
• ›Treat court staff and opposing counsel professionally; a judge who rose through the court's internal ranks values the functioning of the institution.