4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/09/23 - Sep 23, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/09/23

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 17 min 1 speaker 7 chapters transcribed 1 hour ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What technical issues are addressed at the start of the oral argument session?

Unknown 0:15

Mr Schaefer. Can you hear me? I'm not able to hear you, Mr Schaefer.

Unknown 0:41

I'm sorry, you're still muted. I cannot hear you.

Unknown 0:55

Yes,

Unknown 1:27

Ladies and gentlemen, if I get your attention real quick, uh just to reminder, uh code rules, snowy, not two down, no drink to any liquid for your backward. For council when you come up, uh there is water provided for you. Uh the podium does adjust in height. There's an uh a toggle switch right here, just hold it hold the button to go down, vice versa to go up. Apparently it's recording, so to pick up any conversation in the room. Uh restrooms are outside October Savannah if you haven't found it already and there was a water paddle right across from that. Um the read article told change the taste, change paper magazines. Morning. Morning, council. Your name? Yeah, and Richie. Thank you. Thank you for the during.

Unknown 2:04

All right, any questions, please runs? Nope. Ask the whole gift.

Unknown 3:01

Yeah, brand new. Um I Hello, Mr. Yeah, I'm sure he's in hear me. Давай.

Mark Schaefer 3:13

Yeah. Hello, can you hear me? I think it was more than.

How does the court introduce the first case involving the anti‑slapp motion?

Mark Schaefer 3:18

Can you hear me? I'm sorry. Uh

Unknown 3:25

Uh Mr. Schaefer, can you hear me?

Mark Schaefer 3:28

I hear you, but you don't hear me, right? Yeah, I can hear you now. Thank you. I'm I'm okay, I'm I'm on my cell phone now. I'm hanging up from my landline, okay? Thank you.

Unknown 3:39

Thank you.

Mark Schaefer 3:40

Okay, good.

Unknown 3:41

Okay. I can hear you now.

Mark Schaefer 3:43

Thank you.

Unknown 3:44

Thank you. Any um

Mark Schaefer 3:47

You process.

Unknown 3:50

Ay, ay, ay.

Mark Schaefer 3:53

Oh god. The phone's gonna ring nonstop. Wow.

Unknown 4:00

Uh my friend. Oh my god.

Unknown 7:52

Yeah.

Unknown 8:30

Oh I just for the kill or for the mountains of division three.

Justice Motuike 8:38

Good morning everyone. Uh well one panel this morning for matters. I am Justice Motuike.

What arguments does counsel make to support granting the anti‑slapp motion?

Justice Motuike 8:45

To my right is Justice Delaney and to my left is Justice Scott. First matter on calendar, Dan Antomic versus Law Offices of Giselder.

Mark Schaefer 8:58

Good morning, Your Honor. Are you able to hear me?

Justice Motuike 9:00

Yes, thank you. Good morning.

Mark Schaefer 9:02

I am Mark Schaefer of Nemethic and Cole, attorney for the respondents.

Justice Motuike 9:08

Thank you. And whenever uh we don't have an appearance from appellant as they have waived oral argument. So if you'd like to proceed or submit on your briefing, whatever you'd like to do.

Mark Schaefer 9:18

I'll just uh briefly summarise the high points. Uh the trial court correctly granted respondents anti slap special motion to strike. In their reply brief, the Antoniocs stated that their appeal concerns only The striking of their first cause of action for negligence. Any cause of action, including negligence. That sues opposing litigation counsel. for actions taken concerning their representation representation of their client. Is classic petitioning activity covered by the anti slap statute? That shifted the burden. to the appellants Antoniox. They not only failed to produce evidence to meet their burden of showing a probability of prevailing, but But they could not overcome numerous d affirmative defenses, which they have conceded apply by not challenging those defenses in their opening brief.

Mark Schaefer 10:12

Including one The absolute litigation privilege. Two The no direction direct action rule. Which prohibits them from suing the progressive defendants without first obtaining a judgment against progressives insured. And three, the progressive defendants cannot be liable for negligence because they do not owe any duty to their insured's adversary, the Antoniocs. Consequently, the anti slap order deserves to be affirmed. Mr.

How does Justice Scott respond to the anti‑slapp arguments?

Mark Schaefer 10:40

Schaefer? Thank you.

Nicholas Bronni 10:42

Mr. Chafer, this is Justice Scott. Uh it's possible maybe to read uh the Antoniax papers as suggesting that they really don't have any problem with the anti slap motion being granted uh in favor of your clients. Their concern is that they think that ruling somehow bars that claim against the policy. Against the driver. Who of course did not file the anti slav motion. Any thoughts on that? It really doesn't it really doesn't concern

Mark Schaefer 11:13

me. So if they if they acknowledge the NIS if you read their d read their brief briefing as conceding that the anti staff is properly granted, I'm happy with that. It's got really nothing to do with the the in the insured. That's a different story. That's fair. Thank you. Thank you.

Justice Motuike 11:27

Right. Thank you, Mr. Ruby. The matter then will be submitted.