4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/06/22 - Jun 22, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/06/22

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 53 min 8 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 was the purpose of the opening remarks and panel introduction?

Unknown 6:41

Good morning, everyone. Welcome. We have one panel this morning. I am Justice Motuike. To my right is Justice Delaney, and to my left is Justice Scott. The first matter on calendar, Marshall Romero versus Geraldine Jones.

Donald Wallace 7:14

Good morning. I'm Donald Wallace, representing the defendant and appellant and respondent. Excuse me. Good morning. I don't know if an appellant has appeared.

Unknown 7:25

She has not. I don't know. Mr. Wallace, have you received the request that she filed this morning?

Donald Wallace 7:32

No, I have not.

Unknown 7:33

Okay. Is there any way that we might be able to give him a copy of what we've received? Yes. Okay. Okay.

Unknown 7:47

Mr. Wallace, I do want to give you an opportunity to review what she has written to the court. But in essence, she has asked us to consider a continuance.

Donald Wallace 7:55

I'm sorry to interrupt.

Unknown 7:56

In essence, she has asked us to consider giving her a continuance.

Donald Wallace 8:00

To be heard.

Unknown 8:02

To be heard at a date that is convenient for both parties and the court's calendar.

Donald Wallace 8:05

At a

Unknown 8:06

future date.

Donald Wallace 8:06

Yeah. I'll say

Unknown 8:08

that.

Donald Wallace 8:08

A continuance. Thank you. And did you want me to...

Unknown 8:16

I'd like to give you a few minutes to review that, but I don't want to call another case right now because I would like to address your matter first.

Donald Wallace 8:24

Yeah, I don't have any objection to request continuous.

Unknown 8:43

That is very kind of you. Thank you very much. We have reviewed the request for continuance and thank you very much for your information because we are inclined to grant that request. So what we'll be doing is the clerk's office will notify both parties as to the future date. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Unknown 9:10

Next matter, Zetto v. Yee.

Unknown 9:35

Whenever you're ready.

Shen Chen 9:36

For more, Your Honor, may I please quote? This is a second appeal. Can we get your appearance, please? Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. This is Shen Chen, appealing on behalf of Plaintiff Cross Dependent and Appellant Jin Sato.

Unknown 9:52

And Mr. Chen, you've reserved 15 minutes. Do you wish any of that time for reply?

Shen Chen 9:58

Yes, can I reserve three minutes for reply? Certainly.

Why did the parties discuss a continuance request for the Romero v. Jones matter?

Unknown 10:01

Thank

Shen Chen 10:01

you. This is the second appeal from the same issue, which is where the trial court applied the correct standard to award sanctions for the moving party, which is my client, Gene Sato. And in the prior appeal in this court, the court issued an opinion reverse the prior order and asked the trial court to provide reasonable justification for its award of sanctions. And in this appeal, there's a new issue, which is a procedural issue, which is we believe the order, subject order we appealed from in this case is a void order because the trial court issued the order when the first appeal, which is a prior appeal, is still pending. And then it is on the same subject matter as it's on the same issue. So based on our analysis, that order is void and it is

Shen Chen 10:58

If the court agrees with my analysis, this is a dispositive issue, which means that the order should be reversed. But also, I'd like to get into the substantive issue, which is whether Trial Court is correct with issue extension order. On that note, I think I'd like to focus on a general concept of arising, because I believe that issue

Donald Wallace 11:29

Shen Chen 11:30

primarily determined whether the anti-select motion could be filed or should be filed. And if I were to go back to 2002, when the Supreme Court issued the three decisions on the anti-slam motion concurrently on the same day, which is the Equilon case, the Navalier case, and the Cedillo-Kotadi case, And each case has a different background, or I call it maybe a different threat. And I did not know any particular case or treaty analyze what's really the difference between three cases. But based on my understanding, the trial court repeated the use of the CTO Cotetti case to justify its deny of the anti-select motion and also to our sanctions. But I think that case has two circumstances I believe is important.

Shen Chen 12:28

The first one is before any petition was filed, there was pre-existing, pre-petition relationship between the two parties. For example, in city of Kotaidi, the issue is whether the mobile, the new ordinance on rent stability on the mobile home it should be, is valid. So that's a controversy before any petition was filed between the two parties.