4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2025/12/15 - Dec 15, 2025

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2025/12/15

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 1h 34m 1 speaker 5 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 is the central dispute in the FHDI vs Grantham case?

Unknown 0:19

Yeah.

Austin Doole 0:25

Yeah.

Unknown 3:39

All rise for reveal for the fouth district division three is now in session. Yeah, I would think. Good morning everyone. Very busy. I am Justice Moore, and to my right is Justice Goody, and to my left is Justice Scott. We have two separate panels today and several cases. This panel will preside over two of the cases and we'll take a very brief recess and then the other panel will come out and call the other cases. The first case is the F H D I versus Gregory Grantham.

Unknown 4:34

Yeah. Good morning and and whenever petitioner uh Helen is ready, you may proceed soon. What do you have? Your money.

Mario Scanner 4:52

Uh I would I would like to reserve uh three minutes uh for rebuttal, if that's

Unknown 4:56

all right. And give us your appearance if you would.

Mario Scanner 5:00

Yes, uh Mario Scanner appearing on behalf of appellant Gregory Grantham. Um Your Honors, this this case presents a a uh a straightforward question. Can a plaintiff allow a civil action to languish for eleven years and still obtain a valid judgment when California law mandates dismissal after five? The answer under civil codes, civil uh of civil procedures, section five eighty three point three ten and this court's precedent is no. The complaint was filed july fifteenth, twenty thirteen. The default judgment against mister Grantham was entered august twenty ninth, twenty twenty four.

Unknown 5:40

As I understand it, the parties agree that the plaintiffs must demonstrate nine hundred and seventy-four days of discretionary tolling under five eighty three point three four O, and there were five hundred and fifty five days of tolling due to Grantham's incarceration and six hundred and twenty five days due to the court's unilateral continuances that were no fault of the Plain Act.

Mario Scanner 6:06

Your Honor, that's correct. The the the plaintiff had uh had to um uh Um had to make up for nine hundred and sixty nine days, Your Honor. That's uh it had to show exception uh of nine hundred and sixty nine days that it was impossible, impracticable, or futile to bring this case to trial or obtain a default judgment. Uh the what they did offer your honors was a hundred and twenty six days of for filing an amended complaint. Five hundred and fifty five days for for mister Grantham's incarceration during a period when no stay was in effect. nine hundred and ninety four days for continuances of status conferences and trial setting conferences. Your honors, all of these all of these fall Uh uh are subsumed by the five year rule and fall outside of the the exceptions.

Mario Scanner 6:59

What about

Unknown 6:59

what about the delays caused by the COVID pandemic?

Mario Scanner 7:03

Your Honor, that's the six that's that's why the the six month rule was was was put into place, was that we're gonna add six month onto the five year rule and that's what it is. And so the courts of appeals have have found that Had that's that's what we're gonna follow and we w I believe the the rule passed in uh twenty nineteen or two thousand and twenty, where it added the six month on top of the five years. Um Uh in in gains versus fidelity, the the time consumed by the delay caused by ordinary incidents of proceedings like dispositions of demur, amendments of pleadings, and the normal time of of waiting for a place on the court's calendar are not within contemplation of these exceptions. That's that's the binding precedent.

Mario Scanner 7:49

Um and that's the Supreme Court and and that and that precedent forecloses every single category of tolling that FHD has claimed. on incarceration In Brown versus Superior Court Uh this was directly addressed. The plaintiff in that case was incarcerated for three years of the five year period. The Court of Appeal rejected the i that argument that the that the incarceration told the statute and dismissed the case. There is no right for a civil litigant to be physically present at trial. FHDI could have proceeded, F HDI could have taken defaults, they chose not to. Not only that, in April of twenty sixteen, FHDI on the day of trial, while both defendants were in prison. were not ready to go to trial against Grantham and Phelum and requested to bifurcate and requested time to file motions to bifurcate.