4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/03/17 - Mar 17, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/03/17

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 2h 52m 3 chapters transcribed 9 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural issues are raised at the start of the oral arguments?

Unknown 7:14

All rise. Court of Appeal for the County District Division 3.

Justice Motuike 7:26

Good morning, everyone. We have one panel this morning, three matters. I am Justice Motuike. To my right is Justice Sanchez, and to my left is Justice Scott. We'll start with the first matter, Mary Patricia Rodas versus Peter Bedder.

Charles Swartz 7:57

Good morning, Your Honors. Should I stand at the podium?

Justice Motuike 8:01

Yes, please. Situate yourself, though. Feel free to do so. And whenever you're ready.

Charles Swartz 8:05

Yes, give me a moment. Good morning, Your Honors. We really have nothing... NEW THAT'S NOT IN THE BRIEFS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE A FEW POINTS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE. FIRST OF ALL, IN ORDER FOR A RESTRAINING ORDER TO BE ISSUED, IT MUST BE THE PETITIONER MUST

Justice Motuike 8:46

SORRY, COUNSEL, DID WE GET YOUR APPEARANCE?

Charles Swartz 8:48

I APOLOGIZE. CHARLES SWARTZ, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDED BELOW AND THE APPELLANT. THANK YOU. So in order for the restraining order to be issued in the first instance, the petitioner is required to present clear and convincing evidence that establishing that she's entitled to the restraining order. That's CCP 527-6 subpart I. And in the lower court, she did not present, clear and convincing evidence was not presented. What she did was present a series of demonstrable lies. And the two that we'd like to emphasize, first of all, she relied on her statement that Mr. Vetter, when he was blowing using the leaf blower, was next to the palm tree that was on her property. And we have demonstrable evidence that the palm tree is not on her property.

Charles Swartz 10:03

In fact, it's not even on the next door neighbor's property. It's two properties over. And that's clearly shown. I think the clearest evidence of that is the three photographs, which are the CT 205, 206, and 207. On 205, you can see the properties are Rhoda's properties on the far left. There's the second middle property between her property and the third property, which contains the palm tree. And she testified that the palm tree was on her property several times, and that was relied on by the court below in making the ruling that was made. In addition, she testified that the bad behavior occurred hundreds of times. Evidence code section 412 requires a moving party to present the best available evidence.

Charles Swartz 11:22

So if this had happened hundreds of times, she should have come to court, which everybody walks around with a cell phone with a camera and video. She could have videographed the incidents. And she didn't come to court with any of that. And evidence was presented that disputes everything that she said. So at best, this was a hearsay, he said, she said case with no clear convincing evidence necessary for the issuance of the restraining order. Where she claimed vetters misbehaved hundreds of times is at the reporter's transcript, page 13, lines 17 through 24. But she produced no video or other credible evidence establishing the misbehavior. I've already referred to the photographs 205, 206, and 207, but I think those are the clearest ones, clearly indisputably establishing that the palm tree is not even on her property.

Charles Swartz 12:44

We'd like to just refer to the maxim that somebody should not benefit from their own lies. And that's what occurred in this case. Finally, we cited the penal code sections 118 and 119. That was in the supplemental brief. But those codes established that lying under oath to a court is a felony. So not only did she lie, she committed a felony in order to obtain the restraining order. And I think those are the main points that we would like to emphasize. Everything else is in the briefs. If the court has any questions, I would entertain those.

Justice Motuike 13:33

Not hearing any.

Charles Swartz 13:36

Thank you very much.

Justice Motuike 13:37

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. The matter is submitted as responded to submitting on the briefs. Thank you. Thank you.

Justice Motuike 13:51

Shulman, Bastian, Friedman, and Bui versus Stuart Smith.

Stuart Smith 14:11

Good morning, Your Honor. Good morning. This is a case about where...

Justice Motuike 14:17

Could you state your name, please? Thank

Stuart Smith 14:18

you. Sorry. Stuart Smith, the appellant, and my wife, Renee Smith, unfortunately cannot be here today due to a death in the family. This case is a... The issue is simply where does...