1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/02/24 - Feb 24, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/02/24

California First District Court of Appeal 2h 24m 8 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 is the purpose of the opening session of the California Court of Appeal?

Unknown 0:00

District Court of Appeal Division 4 is now in session with the Honorable Tracy L. Brown presiding. With her on the bench are Justice John Streeter and Justice Pro Tem Ann Moorman.

Tracy L. Brown 0:10

Good morning, and you may be seated.

Tracy L. Brown 0:24

Somebody much taller than I am was sitting in this chair previously. Now I can see over the bench. Okay, let's start with lines 1A and 1B, which are the city and county of San Francisco versus Jamali.

Tracy L. Brown 0:51

And once you're squared away, let's begin with appearances from counsel, starting with counsel for the Jamalis.

Philip Siegel 1:00

Good morning, Your Honor. This is Philip Siegel, appearing for the intelligence.

Tracy L. Brown 1:04

Okay.

Megan Ryan 1:06

Good morning, Your Honor. This is Megan Ryan, appearing in former

Tracy L. Brown 1:10

office.

Unknown 1:10

Okay. Good morning, Wade

Tracy L. Brown 1:14

Chow. Okay. And Ms. Ryan, will you be handling the whole argument today? Okay.

Elizabeth Thornton 1:19

Okay,

Tracy L. Brown 1:20

and let's have counsel for the appellants approach here. And before you begin, could you let me know how much of your 15 minutes, if any, you'd like to reserve for rebuttal?

Philip Siegel 1:33

I would reserve five minutes.

Tracy L. Brown 1:35

Okay, so we'll put 10 minutes on the clock, if we might. Thank

Philip Siegel 1:42

you.

Tracy L. Brown 1:42

OK, and you may proceed.

Philip Siegel 1:44

Thank you, Your Honor. First of all, I wanted to bring to the court's attention that my co-counsel, Mr. Hale, has filed another motion for reconsideration late last night, early this morning. I don't know whether the court has seen that or considered it.

Tracy L. Brown 2:02

Absolutely not. That's not something that's done in this court before a final opinion is issued. So that's not something we would have looked at.

Philip Siegel 2:11

Certainly. Okay. Well, there are some points in that document which have been raised regarding the timeliness of the appeal issue.

Tracy L. Brown 2:21

So why don't you focus your arguments here on the tentative opinion which was issued and don't refer to this document that none of us have seen and wouldn't have looked at even if we had been notified that it had been filed.

Philip Siegel 2:34

Right. Well, Mr. Hale had asked me to ask the court if there was any chance that this hearing could be continued so that the court could consider that additional argument. But I understand we're here for the arguments. We are. So go ahead. I'm good. OK. So on September 12, 2000, sorry, I lost the glass. Right. September 12th, 2024, there was a hearing on the motion for new trial with Judge Bolanos. And Judge Bolanos... rendered her decision that the motion for new trial was denied and set a date. And the minutes clearly indicate she set a date of September 16th, where it would be come final. And she wanted to know if the parties were interested in settlement negotiations. And the parties did engage in settlement negotiations.

Philip Siegel 3:36

We had three or four settlement conferences with Honorable Kathleen Kelly, who stepped in to do the settlement conferences. So the case law is clear, and there are two cases that support the argument that the minute order is the date that the ruling was made. And in fact, there is a

Tracy L. Brown 3:56

case- The minute order says the court is making a tentative ruling on September 12th, 2024. Nothing happened on September 16th in any minute order, right?

Philip Siegel 4:11

Right, but in that September 12th minute order, she said she wanted the parties to know by September 16th whether they were engaging in settlement negotiations and whether they wanted a private mediator or a judge. And then the tentative is very clear that that was the ruling. The motion was denied. And in fact, well, the court on October 4th issued the order. Why?

Tracy L. Brown 4:38

Why would the court issue an order if it had already ruled on September 12th?

Philip Siegel 4:43

Because the court was giving the reasons and a full analysis as to the order for the one on October 4th, which was just verifying the tentative ruling that was listed in the minute order of September 12th.

Who are the counsel appearing and what issues are they addressing?

Tracy L. Brown 4:58

And what is your case law to suggest that the October 4th, 2024 order was... effective given that the time to rule on the time for new trial had expired on September 23rd.

Philip Siegel 5:16

Well, so see, that's the thing that's really unfair here, Your Honor, to my clients. And we all know that the courts want to try to cure uh... cure cases on the merits your step and this is a jurisdictional problem right but it's a jurisdictional problem that was brought up by the court council in their opposition never mentioned this issue and that's because no one none of us believe there was any jurisdictional issue because the ruling became effective under the case law that says the minute order the ruling that's the date of the ruling if there is an order that formalized it with regard to the