1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2026/4/23 - Apr 23, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 5 Oral Argument - 2026/4/23

California First District Court of Appeal 2h 35m 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 does the court say at the beginning of the oral argument and who are the parties appearing?

Terry L. Jackson 0:18

Please be seated.

Terry L. Jackson 0:34

Uh just as well.

Terry L. Jackson 0:41

If you just give me one moment.

Terry L. Jackson 1:09

All right. Good morning everyone. I am Justice Terry L. Jackson, the presiding justice of Division Five for the first appellate district. I'm joined on this matter at line one of Kevin E. Gilmore with Justice Gordon Burns as well as Justice Danny Chu. And this is Kevin E. Gilmore versus Wilshire Quinn Capital Inc. Um, may I please have the appearances? Mr. And could you go to the podium, sir, and just state your appearance?

Kevin Gilmore 1:42

Good evening. My name is Kevin

Terry L. Jackson 1:44

Gilmore. Thank you. Good mor good morning. And may I please have the appearance of the um respondent in this case, who is here by way of remote.

Brianna Milligan 1:57

Good morning, Your Honor. This is Brianna Milligan for Wilshar Quinn the Respondent.

Terry L. Jackson 2:01

Very good. The court has read and considered the briefs that have been filed in this case. Um we've also sent out an order setting forth that each side will be given seven minutes total. Mr. Gilmore, since you are the appellant, um And you may if you can only have rebuttal if there is a response. But if there's no response, then there's no rebuttal. But if you want to reserve any time for rebuttal, how much of your seven minutes would you like to reserve? Uh Two minutes. Two minutes. All right, Mr. Gilmore. This is a case um where the trial court sustained the defendant's demur on your complaint without leave to amend. You may proceed.

Kevin Gilmore 2:46

Yes. When I went to refinance my refinance Chris Garcia of Wilshire Quinn decided to add a hundred and fifty thousand dollar exit fee. to investors through the a real estate investment trust Without my knowledge, the defendant had taken the funds and They agreed to advance to me and put them into a real estate investment trust. It was a presto change of They scuffled around the money and never properly accounted for it. The hundred and fifty dollar thousand dollar exit fee made my refinance fall through. I had over two million dollars in equity, Wilfred Quinn. Інк превente мі ф фром слабь мо проти. to exit their investment shimsham. My complaint led out these issues. In fraudulent accounting.

Kevin Gilmore 3:39

uh predatory behavior, breach of contract. Breach of fiduciary duty. California civil procedures section four five two states that the complaint must be taken liberally. Uh Grizzly versus Williams, nineteen sixty one. One nine three California appeal. Second. California APP Se second uh Six thirty six and six thirty nine.

Kevin Gilmore 4:21

B L A N K versus K I R W A N nineteen eighty five. fraud that ha if a complaint states a cause of action that could be considered reasonable under the any theory that should be s that should survive the mere. For purposes of Purposes of the state, the mayor This allegation must be accepted as true. Devaux versus state of California nineteen eighty eight. In Lizar versus Superior Court nineteen. Найдіс та Калинія Superior Court. found that we must under established principle assume that the truth of all parties pleaded material allegations of comp of the complaint Evaluating the validity of an in evaluating the validity. Um T M O T A M E N Y versus Atlantic Richfield Company nineteen eighty. Linear technology.

Kevin Gilmore 5:46

Версус Applied Materials. Whether a Principle is that Defective Whether a practice is defective, fraudulent, Or unfair It's generally a question. A fact which requires consideration weighing the evidence from both sides. Which usually cannot be made in demire. This is cutting. McHale versus Washington Mutual. The allegations of The allegations of the answer must be Regarded as true. And all inferences must be granted. In favor of the the the defendant who filed the answer. South Shore Land Company, California Pell. California pill. Court dis appeal at District Two. My answer to Wilshire Quinn's Demir should have been Granted us I should have my day in court. I have over two hundred pages of evidence. The Superior Court Judge Schwartz never gave me a chance to present my

Kevin Gilmore 7:05

my evidence and have my day in court. I stayed it in I stated in the complaint I had Triple A insurance and sent proof of insurance to the prop predatory lender Wilshire Quinn Capital Inc.