4DCA Division 1 Oral Arguement - 2026/06/10 - Jun 10, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 1 Oral Arguement - 2026/06/10

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One 3h 42m 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 Zoom instructions and participant check‑in?

Unknown 1:48

Welcome to Zoom for government. Enter your meeting ID followed by pound.

Joanna Schiavone 1:58

Enter

Unknown 2:10

your participant ID followed by pound. Otherwise, Please enter the meeting passcode followed by pound. You are in the meeting now. There are three participants in the meeting. This meeting is being recorded.

Unknown 3:48

Hey, Martha. Good morning. Justice Doe let me know the clock here was slow.

Amanda Lloyd 4:01

I'm

Unknown 4:01

not sure. Okay. Set.

Unknown 4:26

Hey there.

Unknown 5:31

is not intuitive on this thing. I mean, no, the battery is good. It's just, so when I do go to set,

Martha 10:51

Good morning. This is Martha from the clerk's office. I'm just going to be doing a quick check-in. Do I have attorney Laura Arnold?

11:01

Good morning.

Martha 11:02

Good morning. OK, so we are going to be starting shortly. So if you can, please, if you can keep your microphone off until your case is called. If you experience any technical difficulties during the oral argument session, immediately exit the video conference and use the phone number and the access code that I emailed you this morning, OK? So Court will be with you shortly. Thank you.

15:33

Thank you.

Unknown 19:07

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our 4th District Division Board Argument. We should be getting started in a few minutes. Before we get started, I was going to let you guys know, at the council's table, on your left-hand side, that's for appellants, on the right-hand side is for respondents. There's water available to you guys while you guys are up here arguing. Other than that, there's no drinking, eating, or gum chewing in the courtroom. and uh... when you're up here arguing, make sure you speak clearly into the microphone. That will help the adjuster hear you better and also the proceedings are recorded. If you need to adjust the height of the electron, there is a switch right here that can adjust it up and down.

Unknown 19:41

Other than that, any questions for me? No? Okay, sit tight and we should be getting started in a few minutes.

Unknown 25:26

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Court of Appeal. Please have a seat. Make yourself comfortable. We have one panel change this morning. So after this first case, we'll take a break and then continue with the remaining two cases for the morning. On this first case, I am joined by Justice Doe to my right, Justice Rubin to my left, and that first case is going to be Casares v. City of Beaumont. And counsel, please. have you both here. So counsel for appellant and Mr. Pressley, whenever you're ready and if you could begin by stating your appearance and also let me know if you would like to reserve any time for

Lawrence Pressley 26:15

rebuttal. Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning. You may please the court. My name is Lawrence Pressley. I represent Juan Cazares, and Sandra Rosales, the appellates in this matter. Appellate would respectfully request two minutes for rebuttal. I'll give you an indication when you're getting close. How about that? Thank you, Your Honor. Today we ask the court to reverse the judgment and remand for trial or alternatively remand with directions to allow deposition of the city's person most qualified. The request is made for two reasons. First, the trial court based its judgment on erred evidentiary rulings. And second, the record established triable issues of material fact for both causation and constructive notice.

Lawrence Pressley 27:00

To my first point, the trial court's decision to grant the motion for summary judgment was based on erred evidentiary rulings. In the lower court's judgment, the lower court strictly construed the appellant's evidence and improperly excluded expert opinions, photographs, and GPS data. that were relevant in making the decision. The trial court also mistakenly relied on medical records in an unauthenticated traffic collision report. For example, in its ruling, the trial court improperly concluded that the expert, Dale Dunlap, provided no basis for his opinions other than photographs that were included in his declaration but were not authenticated. Those photographs were, in fact, authenticated in paragraph 7 of Mr. Cazares' declaration, which was submitted with or in the opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

Lawrence Pressley 27:58

Additionally, the city did not object to figures 2 through 5, which were the photos in Dale Dunlop's declaration.