1DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/6/02 - Jun 02, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/6/02

California First District Court of Appeal 2h 1m 7 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What arguments are presented during the opening appearances and introductions?

Unknown 0:16

Good morning, please be seated. Thank you for being here this morning and thank you for being on time. And um we're gonna get started straight away. Um let's start with Al Sadie versus Westbrook, although I don't know if I pronounced the names right. If I didn't I apologize. Uh but let's get an entry of appearance for both council, please.

Jason Seo 0:42

Good morning, your honors Jason Seo of Horvitz and Levy representing Mr Uh Westbrook.

Unknown 0:48

I I'm sorry, what was your last name again? Uh Sue. Sue, okay, that's what I thought. I just wasn't sure if I heard you correctly. Okay, thank you, Mr. Sue.

Benjamin Simoneau 0:56

And good morning, Your Honors Benjamin Simeneau on behalf of the plaintiffs. All right, thank you,

Unknown 1:00

Mr. Simeneau. So let's start with you, Mr. Sue. Uh you're up, you've received our tentative opinion, so you know what we're thinking. Uh you don't like it, and please tell us what we got wrong. Thank you, Your Honors.

Jason Seo 1:14

Good morning, and may it please the court. I represent the defendant, Mr. Westbrook. I would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal. Sure. We respectfully submit that the court's tentative opinion warrants reconsideration. I will focus my argument on the court's harmless error analysis that the mission of Officer McKay's citation and finding that Mr. Westbrook was solely at fault is erroneous. We believe the tentative significantly understates a critical impact of Officer McKay's inadmissible testimony at trial. Especially in light of the jury's finding that both parties were negligent. Well the jury found that uh that your client was ninety percent negligent, correct? Yes, our client was ninety percent n negligent, and Mr.

Jason Seo 2:00

Al Saidi was ten percent negligent. All right. And uh and if time permits, I will also address the court's tentative conclusions on the medical lien and continuance issue. I'll start briefly by discussing the standard of review. In reviewing this case for abuse of discretion, the courts tentative assumes without deciding that legal errors occurred, but concludes those errors were harmless. To determine whether legal error is prejudicial, the test is whether there is a reasonable chance that we would have obtained a more favorable outcome absent the error. A reasonable chance does not mean more likely than not. It simply means more than an abstract possibility. Reversal is required whenever there exists at least an equal balance of reasonable proper b probabilities.

Jason Seo 2:56

In other words, a tie goes to the pellens. And to be clear. A more favorable result does not require a defense verdict. It includes any improvement in the outcome in this case. Here, that could be a higher allocation of fault to Mr. Al-Sadie or a lower damages award. Turning to my first point on the prejudice of admitting Officer McKay's uh t uh t uh traffic report and his citation that Mr Westbrook was the only party uh at fault. Офісор Макейс трафик репорт ваш централь, то плантис кейс. As a tentative states We never disputed that містер Westbrook was негліжен. The issue at trial with respect to liability was comparative faults. Even though Westbrook had pulled out of the parking space, Al Sp Al Sidi sped forward, failed to honk, and did not shift left despite that there was ample space to do so.

Jason Seo 4:05

But doesn't the juries

Unknown 4:06

finding that there that there was ten percent negligence um suggest that it understood that I mean it seems to me that cuts against your argument because it understood the I concept of comparative negligence and it and and it made an attribution of negligence as it found appropriate. So it wasn't as though it just the jury didn't think because of the uh the the police information that it couldn't find any fault.

Jason Seo 4:37

That that is correct, Ron, but the issue again is with comparative faults. Uh and our position is Officer McKay's testimony that Mr. Westbrook was a hundred percent at fault with the tilt of that uh analysis. Okay,

Unknown 4:52

but so I guess we're just going but the point that I'm trying to make is that if The the jury obviously didn't think that the client was a hundred percent at fault just because the officer had said that.