1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2025/11/21 - Nov 21, 2025

argument

1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2025/11/21

California First District Court of Appeal 2h 44m 8 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 are the opening appearances and procedural matters at the start of the oral argument?

Unknown 0:02

All right, please. California Court of Appeal, Virgin Balladusrict,

Brian O'Neill 0:10

Commission 4 is not accepted.

Unknown 0:21

Good morning and please be seated, everyone. Okay, let's call the first case which is Vallejo Unified School District. uh versus superior court. Okay. Counsel are uh appearing remotely on our screen, so can we please begin with appearances from both counsel, starting with counsel for the appellants?

Karen Bray 0:48

Good morning, your honors. Karen Bray of Horbitz and Levy for the petitioner Vallejo City Unified School District.

Michael Rachelsen 0:57

Good morning, your honors. Michael Rachelsen from Gavrilov and Brooks. Appearing for the real parties in interest. The Analine Kagan and Renato Kagan individually and as successors and interest to the estate of Maria Teresa Kagan.

Unknown 1:14

Thank you so much. Okay, and let me turn to uh counsel for the petitioner. Did you wish to reserve any of your fifteen minutes

Karen Bray 1:23

for rebuttal? Yes, please, Your Honor. I I plan to make a few brief remarks and save perhaps ten minutes for rebuttal the bulk of my time.

Unknown 1:32

Okay. So we'll put five minutes on our clock here. Um I don't think you can see it, so you might want to uh keep track a little bit yourself if you can over there. Okay, you may proceed.

Karen Bray 1:45

Thank you. This case obviously involves a tragedy. But it's not one for which the school district can be held liable. As we explained in the briefs under section forty four eight oh eight of the education code The school district is immune from liability for the off campus harm that occurred here. And the Supreme Court's decision in Hoyam doesn't dictate otherwise. In that case where they decided the where the Supreme Court decided that there was no immunity, it involved very different facts in which the student should have been under the school district's supervision during school hours. but was allowed to escape the campus and was then hurt. And the Supreme Court, at least six times over the course of its decision, stresses that the decision hinges on the fact that the student should have been under the s under the school district's supervision.

Karen Bray 2:44

So any broader language in the decision concerning when immunity does not apply needs to be understood and considered in that context. Under which the it's the supervisory responsibility that is the key to the immunity question. And here The student committed suicide while she was at home during winter break. Um, under the custody and supervision of her father. And there's so she was not under the supervision of the school district, and there's no argument that she should have been under the s supervision of the school district. So the immunity of section forty four eight oh eight applies. Most of the opposition briefing focuses on various ways in which the school district was allegedly neg negligent and attempting to help the student.

Karen Bray 3:35

But negligence and

Unknown 3:36

can

Karen Bray 3:36

Unknown 3:37

can I stop you for one second? I'm curious as to whether your view Is that the broad language in Hoyam? which is on its face problematic, shall we say, for the district. Whether your view is that that is A holding that needs to be understood in that specific factual context, or whether it's merely dictum.

Karen Bray 4:05

Well my understanding is that nothing the Supreme Court says can be considered dictum.

Unknown 4:10

Well, I mean there I I I I think what you're alluding to is the principle that even if it is dictum, we should be loath to just cast it aside. Um and that we should you know, our inclination should be to follow it, even if it's technically dictum. I presume that's what you're getting at. Um my

Karen Bray 4:27

my My position as you alluded to in your in your original question is that any of those statements need to be understood in the con in the factual context in which the decision was decided.

Unknown 4:37

So it's a holding but it should be cabined and seen through the lens of the factual context in which the the ruling arises. Exactly. Okay. Exactly. Thank you.

Karen Bray 4:51

Um Returning to the to the it to the arguments in the opposition briefing about negligence. You know, negligence and foreseeability and proximate cause All of those are questions that go to whether or not liability could exist based on general tort principles.