4DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/01/14 - Jan 14, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/01/14

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One 4h 36m 2 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What administrative steps are taken to check in remote participants at the start of the hearing?

Marco Sulpizzi 10:34

That's my kids number.

Unknown 11:04

Good morning. This is Martha from the clerk's office. I will be doing a quick check-in for those of you appearing

Ann Timmer 11:10

remotely. If you can please unmute yourselves and turn on your videos. And please state your presence when I

Unknown 11:17

call your name. I have Attorney Edward Laird.

Edward Laird 11:24

Yes, good morning, President.

Unknown 11:26

Attorney Robert Chandler.

Edward Laird 11:28

Yes, President.

Unknown 11:30

Attorney Gene Vorobio.

Gene Vorobyov 11:33

Yes, good morning, President.

Unknown 11:35

Attorney Armeen Singh. Good morning. Armeen Singh present. And Attorney Christopher Lockwood.

Chris Lockwood 11:43

Good morning.

Unknown 11:44

OK, I'm going to ask you that you please keep your microphones and videos 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, if you can all please turn off your videos and your audios, and Court will be with you shortly. Thank you.

Unknown 20:19

through screening, you come inside the courtroom,

Unknown 24:37

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and council. Good morning. We are going to have four cases on this morning's calendar. With me on the first two cases are my colleagues, Justice Dato and Justice Castillo. And we will first take Arshad, LLC versus Bradley, and both parties are remote, I see. Mr. Laird, are you available, sir? Yes,

Edward Laird 25:08

I am. Thank you. Good morning, Your Honors.

Unknown 25:10

Good morning. And Mr. Chandler, are you available?

Robert Chandler 25:14

Yes. Good morning.

Unknown 25:16

Good morning. All right. I'll let Mr. Laird go first for Mr. Ashwood. And, sir, do you want to reserve any time for reply? I'll

Edward Laird 25:29

reserve four minutes, Your Honor, and I'll probably take four minutes or less and to start.

Unknown 25:37

All right. If you'll state your appearance for the record and you may proceed. Thank you.

Edward Laird 25:45

Edward Laird, appearing for the plaintiff and appellant, Asher Rod, LLC. So, Your Honors, after reviewing everything again yesterday and this morning, I think that what it all really comes down to in the bottom line is the trial court's binding in its minute order decision that it said was to be a judgment that no reasonable person would find the existence of a new contract between the parties. That finding, having found no new agreement, necessarily means that Civil Code section 1945 automatically came into play. In that situation, the defense cannot argument that yes, there was some other new agreement that was formed when the court specifically found that there was no new agreement. While the court on appeal in this case may affirm on any applicable theory, there really are no alternative theories available to save the court's incorrect application of the law.

Edward Laird 27:19

And I think that in this situation, it is obvious that the court did incorrectly apply the law. In this case, it was not the burden of the plaintiff landlord to prove that a new agreement was reached for a month-to-month tenancy. That completely inverts the applicable law, and for that reason, the judgment needs to be

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 27:53

reversed. Mr. Laird, this is Justice Deo. You began by saying that because the court found there was no new agreement, that that indicates that the presumption was not rebutted. But doesn't the case law, and specifically the Avial case, suggest that the issue is not really whether there was a new agreement, but whether the parties intended to continue the old agreement on a month-to-month basis?

Edward Laird 28:30

Well, the code section comes into play automatically if the rent is paid in the same amount for the next month. That's the application of Section 1945. So I don't know how you get around that. I'm not sure I understood the court's questions.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 28:55

Well, OK, maybe I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying that by finding there was no new agreement, that was the end of the issue. And whether or not there was a new agreement isn't the question whether the parties intended to continue the existing agreement on a month-to-month basis. So that here, the court said there was evidence, given the circumstances and particularly the fact that this came at the time of the shutdown and so on and so forth, that that was not the intent, that the parties did not intend to extend the agreement or continue the agreement.