1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2026/1/22 - Jan 22, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2026/1/22

California First District Court of Appeal 1h 33m 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 is the purpose of this oral argument and who are the parties involved?

Unknown 0:01

All rise. The Court of Appeal for the State of California, First Appellate District, Division 5 is now in session. The Honourable Terry L. Jackson presiding, with Associate Justices the Honourable Mark B. Simons and the Honourable Danny Y. Chu.

Terry L. Jackson 0:46

I need one moment to set up here. And good morning, everyone. How are you all doing? I am Justice Terry L. Jackson. I am the Presiding Justice of Division 5 of the First DCA. I'm joined on this matter that is at line one with Justice Mark Simons and Justice Danny Chu. And calling the matter of Louis Navier versus Donald Putnam and Grail Partners. May I please have the appearances? of the appellant first. And could you please go to the podium?

Samuel Kornhauser 1:34

Morning, Your Honors. May I please accord Samuel Kornhauser for the appellants, Louis Navalier and Navalier and Associates.

Terry L. Jackson 1:43

Very good. And may I please have the appearance of the respondent, if you can go to the podium.

Therese Tuttle 1:53

Good morning. Excuse me. Good morning, Your Honors. Therese Tuttle for Donald Putnam, respondent.

Terry L. Jackson 2:01

Okay, and I believe there was another.

Therese Tuttle 2:04

Yes, Mr. Walton.

Richard Walton 2:05

Very good. Good morning, Your Honors. My apologies. I had expected to be there in person, but I appreciate you accommodating me. Richard Walton for respondent, Grail Partners, LLC.

Terry L. Jackson 2:19

All right, before we go on to the time, I believe you did receive the court's tentative. And I believe you also received last night the court's concern regarding the bankruptcy. And also in the tentative, the court had instructed the respondents to divide their time when you go into the actual oral argument. But first, the court would like you to address the... Court's concern regarding the bankruptcy issue. And why don't we start with the appellant.

Samuel Kornhauser 3:01

Thank you, Your Honor.

Terry L. Jackson 3:03

And you understand what we were most concerned about.

Samuel Kornhauser 3:07

I do. I was concerned about it myself. And I apologize to the court. I'm totally responsible, number one. My clients had nothing to do with my late notice to the court.

Terry L. Jackson 3:28

Can you tell us or explain to the court why the delay? When you filed for the bankruptcy in September, if I'm not mistaken, You did your reply brief in October, and here we are in January.

Samuel Kornhauser 3:44

Right.

Terry L. Jackson 3:44

The night before oral argument, you informed us of the bankruptcy that was filed in Nevada.

Samuel Kornhauser 3:52

Yes, if I go through the chronology, Mr. Navalier and Navalier and Associates were involved, including myself and a large securities firm case back in Boston. The court came down with a $30 million judgment against Navalier and Associates. And while the case was on appeal to the First Circuit, there were a lot of discussions and the Navaliers hired a bankruptcy attorney. I think it was probably in March of 2025 to discuss the ramifications of this judgment. I was informed by, I don't do bankruptcy law, We already had the appeal in this case filed, and I think when we were having those discussions with the bankruptcy lawyers, we had filed our opening brief. I think that was in May or June. Anyway, I spoke to the bankruptcy attorneys as to whether or not there was a stay, and that would prove...

Samuel Kornhauser 5:19

prevent going ahead with the appeal. I was told that as long as the Navaliers were the plaintiffs were pursuing a remedy, they could go ahead and I could go ahead with the appeal. I did that. We filed our opening brief. The Putnam defendants filed their opposition. I filed the reply in October, of 2025. Then in the bankruptcy, a few weeks ago, an issue came up with another claimant about whether or not a claim against that claimant could proceed and whether I could litigate that case without getting approval from the bankruptcy court. And that triggered his

Unknown 6:25

concern. Excuse me, Mr. Kornhauser. I apologize for interrupting. You were aware when the bankruptcy was filed? That's correct. OK. So you were aware at the beginning of September that your client had filed for bankruptcy.

Samuel Kornhauser 6:42

That's correct.

Unknown 6:43

Samuel Kornhauser 6:43

fact, as I said, I had discussed when it was decided to file the bankruptcy, I discussed with the Neveler's bankruptcy attorneys whether a stay would apply to this and several other cases that were pending. But you never

Terry L. Jackson 7:05

informed this court.