Judge David Rosenberg

portrait Judge RosenbergHon. David Rosenberg
Judge, Superior Court of Yolo County

Current Term:
  Sept 2012-Sept 2015
Membership: Voting member, appointed by Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye

Internal Committees: Litigation Management Committee, Vice-Chair; Rules & Projects Committee
Council Liaison to: Superior Courts of Amador, Colusa, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, and Solano Counties

Judge Rosenberg served on the senior staff of two governors and was a county supervisor, a mayor, a city council member, and a civil litigator for 19 years before his appointment to the bench in 2003. In addition to serving three consecutive terms as presiding judge of the Yolo Superior Court, Judge Rosenberg has carried a full felony trial calendar, and is a long-time member of the Court's Appellate Panel, having served two terms as Presiding Judge of that panel. In 2010-11, he was an advisory member of the Judicial Council in his capacity as Chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee. He is currently a member of the Executive and Planning Committee. In November 2012, the Chief Justice appointed him to the Trial Court Funding Work Group, a judicial and executive branch working group evaluating the progress of state-wide funding for trial courts. Judge Rosenberg has co-chaired the Trial Court Budget Working Group and served on the Joint Legislation Working Group of the Presiding Judges and Court Executives Advisory Committees, and the Judicial Recruitment and Retention Working Group. He is a former member of the Civil Law and Small Claims Advisory Committee and the CJER Criminal Law Education Committee, as well as a former faculty member of the California Judicial College. He is a member of the California Judges Association and the Alliance of California Judges, and chairs CJA's Governmental Affairs Committee, having served as a member of that committee since 2005. More >>

LIAISON Reports

As part of the Judicial Council’s efforts to increase communication and transparency and promote accountability, council members serve as liaisons to the 58 trial courts and to the major service units of the Judicial Council staff. Members with updates present their reports at Judicial Council meetings, bringing fresh perspectives on the issues and challenges facing the judicial branch.
Video

Amador County Superior Court liaison report
Jun 26, 2015
With only 27 staff members, the court is challenged with keeping a fully trained workforce to perform court functions. If someone calls in sick, for instance, there are no backups and a courtroom has to close for the day. The court’s case management system is 15 to 20 years old and servers are at their capacity and network systems are slowly breaking down. The court has no reserves and no capital budget. Despite the challenges, the court maintains a high esprit de corps, and it is hoped the council will reassess how the small court is funded under the WAFM model.

Lake County Superior Court liaison report
Jan 22, 2015
Lake County, ranked the poorest county in the state, hosts a population of 65,000 who are served by just 4 judges. The self-help center, once open to the public 5 days a week, is now operating just 2.5 days per week. In his liaison report to the Judicial Council, Judge Rosenberg details the court’s reduction in funding (from $5.4 million to $3.5 million in recent years) has resulted in the reduction of clerks from 43 to 29, cutting self-help center hours and IT staffing by 50%. Like other small counties with facilities built decades ago, jurors assemble in the hallways with the general public population, presented great security challenges for the court.

Colusa County Superior Court liaison report
Dec 16, 2014
Colusa county, situated in the central valley of California, is, according to Judge Rosenberg, the “quintessential small town.” The population of 21,358 residents is served by a historic courthouse built in the 1850’s center of the city of Colusa. The two judges on the Colusa bench are relatively new. The court is staffed by 13 full time and one half-time employees who are  all cross-trained to cover for one another, as needed. The court does not have an IT staff, so services need to be contracted out on a regular basis. $1.8 million in reserves resulting from years of frugality were swept away by the state legislature, leaving them with just over $20,000 in their reserves—not an ideal scenario for a court maintaining a court facility more than a hundred years old.

Site Map | Careers | Contact Us | Accessibility | Public Access to Records | Terms of Use | Privacy