Judge Ronald F. Frank

Judge Ronald F. Frank serves on the Los Angeles Superior Court at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, having been appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in July 2015 as part of a significant batch of 19 superior court appointments. His tenure on the bench spans nearly a decade, during which he has handled high-profile civil matters. The available case data shows he has presided over at least two notable civil cases: a child sexual assault lawsuit against Steven Tyler of Aerosmith, in which he granted a partial dismissal in March 2024, and a lawsuit involving a Palos Verdes Estates psychic and curse removal scheme, which he dismissed in May 2023. These rulings demonstrate a willingness to dispose of claims at the pleading or motion stage when warranted. The existence of a Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) record is a documented fact attorneys should be aware of when assessing this judge. The nature and outcome of that CJP record are not detailed in the available data, but its existence is a matter of public record that warrants independent research by counsel. Because no ruling analyses, attorney observations, or ingested content are available beyond the profile fields, the analytical depth of this report is constrained by the data. Attorneys should treat this profile as a starting point and supplement it with independent research into Judge Frank's recent docket and any publicly available CJP disposition documents.

Based on the documented case outcomes, Judge Frank has shown a readiness to grant dispositive motions — at least partial dismissals — in civil litigation. In the Steven Tyler matter, he granted a partial victory to the defense at the motion stage in March 2024, and he fully dismissed the psychic lawsuit in May 2023. Attorneys on the defense side should evaluate early dispositive motion practice as a viable strategy. Plaintiffs' counsel should ensure complaints are tightly pleaded with specific factual allegations to withstand scrutiny at the pleading stage. The CJP record is a factor that warrants independent investigation before any appearance. Attorneys should research the publicly available CJP record to understand its context, as it may inform how the judge conducts proceedings or responds to certain conduct in the courtroom. This is not a basis for recusal research on its own, but it is relevant background. Given the limited data available, attorneys should independently review Judge Frank's recent rulings on the Los Angeles Superior Court's online docket and through legal research platforms to build a more complete picture of his procedural preferences, tentative ruling practices, and oral argument style prior to any appearance.

• critical

  Research CJP Record Independently

  The CJP record is a documented fact. Before any appearance, attorneys should access the Commission on Judicial Performance's public database to review the nature, findings, and disposition of any disciplinary matter involving Judge Frank.

• critical

  Review Judge Frank's Recent Docket for Ruling Patterns

  No ruling analyses are available in this profile. Attorneys must independently pull recent rulings from the LA Superior Court online docket and legal research platforms to identify procedural preferences, tentative ruling practices, and motion standards.

• critical

  Tighten Pleadings if Representing Plaintiffs

  Both documented cases resulted in full or partial dismissals. Plaintiffs' counsel should ensure every cause of action is supported by specific factual allegations sufficient to survive a demurrer or motion to dismiss.

• important

  Prepare Thorough Dispositive Motion if Representing Defense

  The documented case outcomes show Judge Frank has granted dispositive relief in civil matters. Defense counsel should evaluate and prepare well-supported demurrers or motions to dismiss at the earliest appropriate stage.

• important

  Identify Department and Local Rules

  Confirm Judge Frank's current department assignment at Stanley Mosk Courthouse and review all applicable department-specific rules, standing orders, and scheduling requirements before filing or appearing.

• ›Research the judge's department-specific standing orders and local rules before any appearance, as these govern procedural requirements that vary by department at Stanley Mosk.
• ›Be prepared for the possibility that dispositive motions will be taken seriously — Judge Frank has granted dismissals in documented cases, so oral argument on such motions should be thoroughly prepared.
• ›Given the existence of a CJP record, conduct yourself with strict professionalism and avoid any conduct that could be perceived as improper or disrespectful to the court.
• ›Independently verify current courtroom procedures, tentative ruling practices, and oral argument protocols directly with the department clerk prior to any hearing.