4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/05/21 - May 21, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/05/21

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 4h 19m 6 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What courtroom procedures and rules are announced at the beginning of this oral argument?

Unknown 0:11

Okay, that's fine. Thank you. I don't know. Thank you. So it's a good video. Please have a seat. Yeah, the whole area we're like. Good morning, everyone. I just want to give you some court rules. Reminder that no eating, no chewing gum, no drinking any liquids while you're back there. For counsel, when you come up and present, there is water provided for you. There is also hand sanitizer and wipes. This podium for the council to come up and present your argument, you need to come up to the podium. There's a black button right here, and it's a switch that you just hold down for down and vice versa for up. Okay, apparently it's recording, so it'll pick up any conversation far back of the room. If you haven't recognized where the restrooms are, it's outside opposite end.

Unknown 1:30

There's also a water fountain right across from the restrooms if you need to use some water. There is no panel change, so we're going to go straight through. If you notice, these monitors are on. Actually, Lori, I have them with their videos. Whoever did that. So we have two cases today that we're going to be on via Zoom. So I think the first case is going to be that, and I think the third or fourth is going to be Zoom. Those that are here to observe... Mr. Herman, can you hear me? Yes. You can mute your videos on, so just mute it until we call your case. ...are asked and answered. And that'll be it. Thank you. When that case is done, then you just exit the courtroom. There's no, we won't, the justices will not give you the results now.

Unknown 2:24

It'll be several weeks and they'll use you by mail. Okay. Any questions, concerns? And don't forget, don't read articles that don't pertain to your case, such as newspaper or magazines. And that's all I ask. Okay. Thank you.

Unknown 3:28

I have. Thank you very much. Thank you. This doesn't have anything. There's a Blackburn Rehearsal. We are closing.

Unknown 4:02

Thank you. Thank you.

Unknown 8:59

Mm-hmm.

Unknown 10:14

All rise. Good morning, everyone.

Unknown 10:29

I am Justice. You may be seated. I am Justice Moore and to my right is Justice Gooding and to my left is Justice Scott. We have four matters on calendar this morning and this panel will preside over all four matters. The first case is John Doe versus Regents of the University of California. And as I understand it, both parties are appearing via Zoom. I'd like to have a check to make sure you're there. Are you there, Ms. Parker? Good morning, Your Honors. Jenna Parker for Appellant. And Jean-Paul Cart, are you there?

Jean-Paul Cart 11:09

Yes, good morning, Your Honors. Jean-Paul Cart here for Respondent, the Regents.

Unknown 11:14

All right, appellant may

Jenna Parker 11:21

proceed whenever you're ready. Thank you, your honors. I'd like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal. All right. We're here today to ask the court to set aside the university's decision to terminate appellant's employment on the grounds that he was not provided with a full evidentiary hearing. I'd like to address three points. First and most importantly, the university was required to provide the appellant with an evidentiary hearing and failed to do so. There's no dispute that appellant was a public employee who could only be terminated for cause. Therefore, he had a protected property interest in continued employment. It's well established under the law that employees who have a protected property interest in their employment are entitled to due process because the constitution forbids the government from taking away certain protected interests without a fair procedure.

Jenna Parker 12:08

Under Townsville and the many cases it relied on, appellant was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing at some point in the process, not a paper review or a policy compliance review, but a proceeding where the factual basis underlying the termination decision could actually be tested. That didn't happen here. The pre-termination process started with a Title IX investigation. And in that investigation, you had two university investigators, Holly Hare and Susan Ha, who gathered evidence. And then a third individual, decision maker Chris Buckley, created written summaries based on the investigator's notes. And then Chris Buckley made credibility determinations and findings of fact based off of those written summaries and created a written report.