4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/02/20 - Feb 20, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/02/20

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 2h 48m 3 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 10 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What housekeeping rules does the court set before the oral arguments begin?

Unknown 0:00

water provided for you. If you get thirsty between your cases or when your case is hurt, there is a water fountain outside, so go out to the opposite end, you'll find the restroom, and across from the restroom is a water fountain there. This podium is adjustable in height, so it adjusts right here with this toggle switch, so down for down, up for up. Currently it's recording, so it's picking up any conversation. Don't read articles that don't pertain to your case, such as newspaper, magazines, and so forth. I think we have one pound change or no? No, I don't think we have. No pound changes. It's all the same. It's going to run smoothly, hopefully. Any questions, concerns? All right. Thank you. Yeah, everything's all set.

Unknown 0:42

We'll start shortly. And there's still time if you need to take a restroom break. Yeah, you've got like 20 minutes. Perfectly.

Unknown 4:10

And I have you just here to watch. Because you did not file a brief.

Unknown 5:45

That's why you gave me that confused look. So I'm sorry, I misspoke.

Unknown 19:08

Good

Justice Motuike 19:17

morning, everyone. Welcome. We have one panel this morning, three matters. I'm Justice Motuike, and to my right is Justice Gooding, and to my left is Justice Scott. First matter, American Financial Center versus Michael Young.

Justice Motuike 19:41

And whenever appellant's counsel is ready, you may proceed.

Malcolm Tater 19:46

I'm Malcolm Tater, counsel for the appellant. I'm told by my client that I sometimes have difficulty speaking, so I hope that's not too distracting. It's age-related, I think. At any rate, I'm here primarily to discuss the new case, Pedersen v. Zhang and its impact on our lawsuit. The primary difficulty or problem with the underlying court's decision is its reliance on the declarations of Young and Nguyen. As the Zhang case said, my client's papers are assumed to be true. That's at pages 961 and 967. And contrary evidence from the moving party on an anti-SLAPP motion is not enough to controvert my client's evidence. That's at page 972. In fact, Pedersen says respondent's evidence is not even pertinent unless that evidence destroys my client's case as a matter of law.

Malcolm Tater 20:57

Here, I think that primarily relates to the motion for sanctions in the underlying case and the preliminary injunction in the UNDERLYING CASE. AS THE PETTERSON CASE SAID, THOUGH, THE PROBLEM WITH THOSE IS THOSE ARE NOT VERDICTS OR JUDGMENTS. AND IT SAYS THAT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE NO INTERIM JUDGMENT RULE THAT WOULD DEFEAT US.

Unknown 21:27

That's true for... Even if the interim judgment rule doesn't apply, does that mean that the grant of the preliminary injunction and the denial of the motion for sanctions based on an allegedly frivolous lawsuit are irrelevant?

Malcolm Tater 21:44

On this motion, yes. I suppose you could argue it in the case in front of the jury. But for purposes of an anti-SLAPP motion, that's what Pedersen decided. And I think that would be true. In particular, for the preliminary injunction, remember that the court, in deciding that issue, had to determine, well, what harm might happen to Ms. Nguyen if we don't put in the preliminary injunction until the case goes to final disposition? And that's always a consideration, because you don't only consider on a preliminary injunction, is the moving party likely to win? But you're also saying, well, is there a catastrophic RESULT THAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF WE DON'T STEP IN AT THIS TIME JUST TO MAKE THINGS REMAIN THE SAME.

Malcolm Tater 22:34

AND ON THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, REMEMBER THAT THAT WAS ONLY ON A DEMEUR, AND IT'S A DISCRETIONARY DECISION BY THE TRIAL JUDGE. THAT MIGHT BE BASED ON MR. YOUNG'S REPUTATION IN THE COMMUNITY ALONE, AND ALSO THAT WAS

Unknown 22:50

BASED ON A DEMEUR. I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT MIGHT BE BASED ON HIS REPUTATION ALONE?

Malcolm Tater 22:54

The denial of the motion for sanctions.

Unknown 22:58

So you're suggesting the trial court might have denied the sanctions just because of the lawyer's reputation?

Malcolm Tater 23:05

Yes. That was a discussion in the Pedersen case, saying judges are free to do that, saying, well, we don't believe this particular lawyer would do anything wrong, and therefore we're not going to hit him with sanctions.

Unknown 23:20

Is there any reason to think that the court here relied solely on gravitational issues?