1DCA Division 2 Oral Argument - 2025/12/17 - Dec 17, 2025

argument

1DCA Division 2 Oral Argument - 2025/12/17

California First District Court of Appeal 3h 35m 1 speaker 7 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What case introductions and panel changes are covered at the beginning of the hearing?

Unknown 0:09

Mm. Yeah. Good morning everyone. You can be seated.

Unknown 0:23

So we have four cases on this morning's calendar and I will call them in the order in which they'll be heard and if council can state their appearances I would appreciate it and um Then uh yeah, well let's start there. So the first case is people versus JL.

Unknown 0:51

Counsel for appellant O V, Heather Schallenberger. And I I can't really hear the court. I do apologize. That's okay. Well I can hear the court. I guess I can't hear the other participants. Well, you will because when when they're arguing because they're not at the podium at the moment and that's where their mic is. Thank you. Um the second case is San Leandro Tra trailer park L L C versus City of Sa San Leandro at at Al.

Chris Chapman 1:24

Good morning, Chris Chapman for uh Appellant on Zoom.

Palmer Pukolds 1:29

Palmer Pukolds for real parties of in interest on Zoom.

Unknown 1:38

Thank you. And which one of you i um it's Miss Chapman who no, Mr. Chapman. Oh okay, great. Thank you. Did are you Ms. Are you Ms. Chapman? She's Carl. Okay. Oh I'm sorry. Got confused. All right, third case is Good Hugh versus Goodhue.

Daniel Horowitz 2:05

Good morning everyone. Daniel Horowitz for Neil Good You appellant.

Unknown 2:15

Um we didn't see Mr. Horowitz. Is he on the phone? Oh I'm on

Daniel Horowitz 2:22

the I'm here, thank you.

Unknown 2:23

Okay, great. Just wanted to make sure. And then the last case is uh Valentine um versus Superior Court. Of Solano County. Count. Yes.

Molly Smolin 2:45

And Miss Moren? Good morning, Your Honors. Molly Smolin for Real Party and Interest. Okay,

Unknown 2:52

great. Now before we get started, um I wanna let you know that there will be a panel change between the um second and third cases and so uh We will have j Justice Miller will leave us and Justice Des Hotels will join us um for the the third and fourth cases. But um we have that down so that should go smoothly. All right, so let's hear the people versus J O.

Eileen Manning Villar 3:45

Good morning, Your Honors. Good morning. I'm Eileen Manning Villar, Counsel for Appellant J L. I'm elected to go first because I was the one who requested uh argument. And today I wanted to focus on The question of retroactivity of A B one one eighty six, specifically in regards to the section of Welfare in and institutions code section seven hundred thirty point six new provision that juvenile restitution orders when you have co minors more than one party. Um responsible for that potentially responsible for that order that is no longer a several. matter. So once a minor whatever the amount is assigned to the miner, once that miner pays it off, then they're finished with that. Um I wanted to first um Make it clear that I I agree with

Eileen Manning Villar 4:53

Co not not my co counsel, but the council for O V. Um Miss Stallenberger. In regards to her characterization here. I mean there's kind of two ways to look at why this is non punitive. I looked more in the matter of there's gonna be more certainty. For all the parties. And they once they paid off, they've paid off their amount.

Unknown 5:16

But what does that have to do with non punitive? I didn't I didn't

Eileen Manning Villar 5:19

understand your point. Um well and Miss, I want to uh let the court know that I agree The other characterization has to do more with the culpability. matter because it's basically how much a particular uh defendant or minor is gonna have to pay is based on culpability. And in a way You mean under the new version? Under the new law, yes. And Culpability is in extr you know, it's pretty tied to to punishment. So if We see the legislature tying. This change in the law to culpability. This means they're trying to make you know, they're obviously trying to it is about punishment, basically, to the legislature. Initially they tried to Um will this the folks in the assembly tried to get this. situation with juvenile restitution that never gets paid off, that's um oppressive on the long term for many youth who are in the system.

Eileen Manning Villar 6:22

They try to just eliminate it and have the state compensation plan take care of it. Um And That didn't make it it made it through the assembly, but it didn't make it through the f full floor of the Senate. So and it sat until next year and the Senate came back and revised it. And they put the restitution orders.