4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2025/12/16 - Dec 16, 2025

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2025/12/16

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 3h 3m 1 speaker 6 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 opening remarks and case introductions are made at the beginning of the oral argument?

Jenny Rayfeld 1:44

One like that.

Justice Sanchez 2:42

All right. Court of Appeal, Fort Deppellate District Division Three is not in session. We can see oops. Good morning. We're going to call uh Molina versus Hot Wheels trucking. As our first case, welcome to the Cruz Reynoso Courthouse. To my right is Justice Scott and to my left is Judge Bancroft. I am Justice Sanchez.

Justice Sanchez 3:18

And Mr. Donahue, are you there? Yes, good morning. I'm here. All right. Um We have uh council has uh reached the table and we're ready to go. You have five minutes reserved. I don't know if you wanna keep any of that for rebuttal or not.

Timothy Donahue 3:41

Uh I will try to keep one minute for rebuttal. May I begin? You may begin. Please state your appearance uh

Justice Sanchez 3:49

And then go forward.

Timothy Donahue 3:52

I will. Thank you very much. Uh good morning and thank you. This is Attorney Timothy Donahue representing plaintiff and applicant in this matter. Um We are asking that this court uh grant the appeal from summary judgment um reverse the trial court's order and return the matter to the trial court. for a trial on the factually disputed issues a summary judgment um was filed by defendant and according to the record the burden of proof was never shifted um to anybody by the motion filed by defendant. And I say anybody because even if the bur the initial burden of proof on summary judgment had been shifted In this case it would have been shifted right back. to the lap of the defendant Because the issue the prime issue was whether or not

Timothy Donahue 5:06

Едвардо за трук дравер возіндепенкорнплої. And that's an affirmative defense. It's a defense. Um it's not the plaintiff's burden to prove that so if the burden of proof had been shifted, um the order of proof Um would be that Defendant would then again have to prove Uh by preponderance of the evidence uh this issue of independent contractor and employee status. That would have to be addressed in each of the ten causes of action. There were ten causes of action. Um Hot Wheels Trucking was a trucking company, Edward was a truck driver. This all took place during The period of covet. Eduardo died. from covet. Which is Um Pellants appendix death certificate. Uh one One three one. The death certificate

Timothy Donahue 6:20

um indicates that COVID was a cause of death. Um and viral pneumonia and septic shock. Uh the court according to the defendant's brief which

How does Timothy Donahue argue for reversing the summary‑judgment order and sending the case back to trial?

Timothy Donahue 6:36

We agree with page nineteen. Of the defendant's brief it says the trial court correctly found there was no evidence. That respondent caused decedents death. Uh Well that certainly is not true. There was evidence. There was the declaration of Eduardo's wife Mrs. Molina that's in the record. Uh she outlined in great detail on that declaration must be Liberally construed in favor of a trial on the merits. Remembering the important right of a jury trial. liberally construed declaration of Mrs. Molina Um basically stated that there was no other way she could that Eduardo could have gotten covet. Uh there was no other way. The the defendant Mr Gutierrez, which is in the record, testified. That they had covet going around, they had covid signs.

Timothy Donahue 7:37

Um so there was no dispute. That he had coveted. And of course one of the interesting Um twists if you will in the matter is that in the First cause of action for wrongful death um is pled in the alternative that Eduardo was an employee and that would be up to the jury to determine. Excuse me, that he was an independent contractor on the first cause of action. The second cause of action is essentially the same cause of action, but Um this is a uh labor code violation uninsured employer cause of action And if the jury determined that Eduardo was an employee Then on the second cause of action Uh Liability is presumed.

Justice Sanchez 8:31

And Mr. Donahue, I I just inform uh going to inform you you are past the four minutes, so if you do want to reserve any time, uh I'll give you a couple seconds to wrap it up, but um Otherwise you're gonna be using your last minute.

Timothy Donahue 8:48

All right, thank you so much. Um Um I will wrap it up, Your Honor. The uh the motion of the defendant in the trial court was extremely sparse and the plaintiff only responded to what was there.