1DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2025/11/19 - Nov 19, 2025

argument

1DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2025/11/19

California First District Court of Appeal 2h 31m 7 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What does the court’s opening and roster of matters cover?

Unknown 0:07

District edition three is now in session. Right. Good morning. Welcome. Please be seated. Welcome to Division Three's oral arguments. You can see that joining me on the bench this morning are my colleagues, Justice Karen Fujisaki. And Justice Victor Rodriguez, we will a little later in the morning have a panel change. We have a busy morning. We have eight matters on the calendar. I can assure you that in all of them we have read Your briefing. wr relevant portions of the record and relevant legal authorities. In some of them we have sent out tentative opinions, in others we have not. I mentioned that because I don't want any lawyer who didn't get a tentative To uh have this moment of panic about what they had overlooked when they hear reference to a tentative in an earlier argued case.

Unknown 1:01

Uh the first matter on is the matter of Gurdieep Duell versus veterinary medical boards and apologies if I'm mispronouncing Mr. Duell's name. May I have appearances, please?

Lauder Paredes 1:17

Your Honor Lauder Paredes with the Attorney General's office representing the veterinary board.

Unknown 1:21

Thank you. Good morning.

George Wallace 1:27

Good morning, Your Honor. George Wallace appearing on behalf of Doctor Deal.

Unknown 1:31

Thank you. Uh the matter's down for ten minutes on each side, uh and you do in this case have a tentative. Mr. Paredes, do you intend to reserve some of that time for rebuttal?

Lauder Paredes 1:48

Your Honor, I'm going to reserve most of that time for rebuttal. Probably so I would just uh ask for two minutes on the front end.

Unknown 1:54

All right.

Lauder Paredes 1:55

Thank you.

Unknown 1:57

The microphone is yours, you may proceed.

Lauder Paredes 2:10

Your Honors may please the court. It is clear from the tentative decision that the court has read the documents and all the filings and the record in this case. There are two questions. The first is our appeal, which was under uh subsection G, subdivision G, pardon me. And under subdivision G, we uh agree with the court's findings on that. I think it is clear that subsection G was intended to enlarge and to give tools to the veterinary board. In the legislative history they use terms like strengthen, adding specific provisions, including. And we would ask the court to we agree with the court on that. on the secondary issue.

Unknown 2:55

Before you move on from that point, so just anticipating what Mr. Wallace is gonna say about as Juice and Generis as a kind of a canon of legislative interpretation, what's your best argument for saying or to or to this notion that in identifying specific classes of things that would constitute professional conduct that the legislature intended to kind of identify a universe of things that really is what was meant by unprofessional conduct.

Lauder Paredes 3:21

I think we have to go back to what the purpose of all the statutory interpretations are. Uh Plain meaning, uh which I referenced. Uh I'm gonna call it E G because my Latin is not as good. Uh It's to try and uh uh ascertain what the purpose of the legislature was. And in this case, what is clear by looking at the legislative history is that you had outdated language, and it was in turn the they actually use the term modernized language. And when you take that into account along with the specific examples cited, uh I'm looking at page seven of the tentative, um, which is referencing uh page four, um, page eight of the tentative, which is referencing page one and three of the legislative history. The legislature intended to add these documents.

Unknown 4:09

Don't you want to need a a hook in the language of the statute and in fact have one in the

Lauder Paredes 4:15

yes, Your Honor. We do have the I think that The only part that I would very respectfully disagree with the court on is I think there's a plain meaning there. And when you have the term As you do here. uh not uh comma uh limited to and so when you have the legislature saying we had these documents and then in the previous iteration I if I I'm happy to go over my time on this and save the rest for rebuttal but

Unknown 4:41

But that that's what we'll do, but I just want to make sure I'm understanding 'cause you said you wanted to disagree with the court. Um So the tentative says the phrase including but not limited to is generally a phrase of enlargement and I thought you were gonna rely on that.