4DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/05/11 - May 11, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/05/11

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One 1h 27m 7 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 are the opening roll‑call procedures and technical instructions for remote participants?

Lily 1:15

Good morning. This is Lily from the clerk's office. I'll be taking a roll call of those of you appearing remotely. If you can please unmute your microphone and turn on your video. And when you hear your name, please state your presence.

Lily 1:35

Erin Morris.

Lily 3:31

Good morning. This is Lily from the clerk's office. I'll be taking roll call of those of you appearing remotely. If you can please turn on your microphone and turn on your camera, state your name when your presence is called.

Lily 3:52

Erin Morris.

Aaron Morris 3:56

I am present.

Lily 3:57

Thank you. Frederick Medill. Hi.

Frederick Medill 4:03

Good morning. I am present.

Lily 4:04

Thank you. And Johnny Dumas.

Johnny Dumas 4:10

Good morning. I'm present.

Lily 4:12

Thank you. The court asks that you keep your microphone muted and camera off until we call your case. As a reminder, the proceedings are live streamed on the court's website. If you experience any technical issues during the session, please immediately call in using the phone number and access code that's on your invite. Thank you. We'll be with you shortly. And the first case will be Lobin V. Lobin.

9:49

Good morning.

Unknown 15:05

with the Court of Appeal. Just a few things before you get started this morning. When you come to the podium to argue, please make sure you adjust it using the switch here on the right side so the microphone is pointing at your chin. If you don't, the justices will not be able to hear you and they'll stop you in the argument to properly adjust it. The appellate table is to my right. That's responding here to my left. If you have to use the restroom, you have to come back through screening to come inside the courtroom.

16:44

Thank you.

17:27

Amen.

18:48

Thank you.

Justice Rubin 20:02

Happy club.

Unknown 20:37

Good

Presiding Justice McConnell 20:41

morning. Welcome to the Court of Appeal. There are four cases this morning, the same panel on all four cases. To my right, Justice Kelady. To my left, Justice Rubin. I'm going to go by time estimates. We'll start with Hunsberger versus Bodo Price.

Karen Spicker 21:07

Good morning, Your

Presiding Justice McConnell 21:07

Honor. Good morning. And the appellant is remote.

Aaron Morris 21:11

Yes, Your Honor. Good morning. Aaron Morris on behalf of the appellants Cornelia Bodo-Price and Richard Gullias.

Presiding Justice McConnell 21:17

All right. Mr. Morris, you gave a time estimate of 10 minutes. Did you want to save any time to respond?

Aaron Morris 21:24

I'd like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal.

Presiding Justice McConnell 21:25

All right. You may proceed. We'll let you respond. Go ahead.

Aaron Morris 21:31

This appeal presents a straightforward legal error. The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion in step one, concluding that speech about whether a sitting HOA officer should be removed from office did not involve a matter of public speech, public interest. That ruling conflicts with decades of binding authority. The order should be reversed for two independent reasons. First, all challenged speech falls squarely within Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. And second, respondent offered no admissible evidence to satisfy step two. This case arises from three categories of speech. The flyers posted in the community, the statements at the HOA meeting urging discipline or removal, and a brief comment at the spa referring to the same issue.

Aaron Morris 22:17

Every one of these communications concerns a single topic, respondent's fitness to serve on the HOA board. And respondent concedes that point. He alleges the flyers urged homeowners to demand his resignation and that similar statements were made at the HOA meeting. This is quintessential political speech within a homeowners association. California courts have long recognized that HOA governance is inherently public in nature. And Damon-

Presiding Justice McConnell 22:45

Excuse me. We have a question.

Justice Rubin 22:47

Yes. Hi. Good morning. This is Justice Rubin.

How does the court introduce and schedule the first case (Hunsberger v. Bodo‑Price) and its anti‑SLAPP issues?

Justice Rubin 22:52

My question is, you made a statement just now that HOAs are-

Justice Rubin 23:03

considerations have the cases said that about all HOAs or HOAs are like huge like 3,000 units

Aaron Morris 23:11

that type of thing I've seen no distinction in the size and the case of I believe it was the Collier case let me see if I can find it said it can even be a one on one controversy between the HOA so long as that one on one controversy involves issues that will be important to the HOA.

Presiding Justice McConnell 23:34

No, but the question is the size of the HOA.

Aaron Morris 23:38

As I said, I've not seen any cases that made a distinction between an HOA with 3,000 members and an HOA with 75 members because it is the issue of governance.