4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/01/21 - Jan 21, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/01/21

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 6h 12m 3 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 day ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural instructions and court housekeeping are given at the beginning of the hearing?

Carol A. Corrigan 0:23

Unknown 0:23

started.

Unknown 4:40

I'm

Carol A. Corrigan 4:43

getting

Unknown 4:44

the other officer to get them in. Huh? I'm getting the other officer to get them in.

Carol A. Corrigan 5:03

Oh, okay.

5:17

I know.

Unknown 5:18

Well, you

Carol A. Corrigan 5:18

know, because I suffer from tinnitus. Tinnitus.

5:27

People say tinnitus, but it's really tinnitus.

Carol A. Corrigan 5:28

Constant ringing of my ear. When I lost my hearing to my right ear, I do that all the time. I'm like, I don't mind just being deaf, but the ringing, 20%. But I have my good days, and

Unknown 5:46

I have days where I have to breathe, or to remind myself.

Everett Skillman 10:57

I'm on the white roller case.

How does the court introduce the justices, parties, and the matters on the second panel?

Unknown 13:26

Good morning, everyone. If I can get your attention real quick. Just a reminder, no eating, no chewing gum, no drinking any liquids while you're sitting in the back. For counsel, when you come up, there is water provided for you. There's also a hand sanitizer and wipes if you want to wipe it down between cases. There is a quick panel change, but it's quick. So don't step out too long if you're on the second panel. Don't read articles. Don't pretend to be a case, such as newspaper, magazines. You say it because someone did it down the line. Restrooms are outside, opposite end if you haven't seen it. There is a water fountain right across from the restrooms if you'd like to get some water before your case is heard.

Unknown 14:04

There's a panel change and that's pretty much it. As far as the podium, it is adjustable and there's a black button right here. You hold it down for down and vice versa for up. It'll do the same thing. Once this light turns red, it's active, so it'll pick up any conversation. However quiet you want to be, it'll probably pick it up, so it'll be recorded. Just be aware of that. All right. Any questions, concerns? Awesome. Thank you.

Unknown 26:19

Good morning, everyone. We have two panels this morning. I am Justice Motowike. To my right is Justice Moore, and to my left is Justice Scott. First matter we'll call this morning is Kevin William Vann, Elizabeth Jensen et al. versus Suzanne Nunn.

Unknown 26:46

Oh, I'm sorry.

What arguments are presented about the default judgment and the statute of limitations?

Unknown 26:47

Sorry. I'm so sorry. I apologize to all council. We are actually taking the second panel first today. My apologies. So it's Dion versus Weber.

Unknown 27:21

Whenever appellant's ready, you may proceed. Whenever you're ready, sir, on behalf of appellant, you may proceed.

Jeffrey Rich 27:43

Good morning, justices. I am Jeffrey Rich, appearing on behalf of appellant, Shirley Weber, as California Secretary of State.

Unknown 27:56

MS. Mr. Rich, do you wish to reserve any of your 15 minutes for reply?

Jeffrey Rich 28:00

MR. Five minutes, Your Honor. MS.

Unknown 28:01

Thank you.

Jeffrey Rich 28:05

MR. Okay. Let me begin with the obvious place we believe to begin, is that the Superior Court erred in its ruling. that the underlying defendant's default in that action waives statute of limitations, and therefore it's gone from this proceeding. Now, that ruling assumes that there's some tie-in between a civil action on one hand and the fund proceeding on the other hand, but there is none. And basically, we know that because the legislature intent in other statutes under the fund statute have given the secretary the ability, not only ability, I would say obligation, to review default judgments to determine if the, excuse me, underlying facts of the case, meaning the underlying action, support the default judgment.

Jeffrey Rich 29:22

And of course, it's perfectly logical why the legislature would be concerned about default judgments, because they are obtained in uncontested proceedings. Even though the judge reviews the papers It doesn't mean that every aspect of the judgment is correct because there was no litigation. There was no adversarial positions taken. It was not tested in litigation. So therefore, the legislature in the fund statute decided to treat default judgments differently than other judgments. And that's found in a number of places under the statute. For example, Section 2282 provides the secretary may request additional documents and information from claimants to determine whether a claim is valid. And that is in the case of a default judgment.

Nicholas Bronni 30:28

MR. Mr. Erich, when that subdivision uses the language, if the claim is valid, Is it your position that what the court is to determine or what the Secretary is to determine in the first instance is that there is merit to the underlying cause of action against the corporation?