4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2025/10/07 Morning Session - Oct 07, 2025

argument

4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2025/10/07 Morning Session

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two 2h 49m 7 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What technical issues delayed the start of the oral argument and who introduced the case?

Unknown 2:29

Testing, testing, one, two, three, testing, testing.

Unknown 2:42

Yeah, just cut out the right.

Unknown 8:53

All right.

Manuel Ramirez 9:02

Thank you very much. Please be seated. And uh I do apologize for the delay. Technically, we were ready to go, but there were technical difficulties. I think you became aware of those and so We assume, Madam Clerk, that we're all now good to go. on the uh technical difficulties. Again, introducing my colleagues appearing before you, which is really just a great honor that uh that I have. Justin McKinster continues to be seated to my right. To your right, we're joined now by Justice Fields. Morning. And uh my name is Manuel Ramirez and we're gonna proceed with calling the two cases that uh I'm on the panel for that's case number two and two A. So let's start with case number two, the Chardonnay. Hill's case, so let's have counsel step forward in that case.

Manuel Ramirez 9:51

And we will need the uh appearance and spelling of the uh good morning and the last name, please.

Peter Racobs 9:58

Good morning, Your Honor.

Manuel Ramirez 9:59

How are you doing today?

Peter Racobs 10:00

Very good, Your Honor. Peter Racobs, R A C O B S For the appellant Chardonnay Hills.

Manuel Ramirez 10:07

And pronounced Raycobs. Rayubs, Your Honor. Okay. Thank you. In fact you may proceed and as you know, you have uh fifteen minutes on the clock. Uh and because there isn't anybody on the other side of the council table, there's no time to reserve or that you need to reserve uh So with that you may proceed.

Peter Racobs 10:25

Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court. Initially, I'd like to thank the court for its tentative opinion in this case and for this opportunity to present argument. The main focus of the appeal is Chardonnay Hill's right to recover attorney's fees and costs in its default judgment. The tentative acknowledges that Chardonnay Hills was entitled to recover fees and costs under California law, but it asserts that that right was forfeited. The tentative says the right to fees was forfeited when the fees were not sought on the request to enter default, which was entered on january seventeenth, twenty twenty four. The tentative says that quote to ensure a defendant is on notice of the obligations faced in the

Manuel Ramirez 11:17

are you reading I I apologize for the uh for the uh interruption, but are you reading from the tender page? Yes, I am, Your Honor, at

Peter Racobs 11:22

page thirteen.

Manuel Ramirez 11:23

Thank you.

Peter Racobs 11:25

To ensure that a defendant is on notice of the obligations faced in a default judgment, the request to enter default must include them. End quote. And it cites the California Rules of Court rule three point eighteen hundred A and Garcia versus Politas from twenty eleven. one ninety two Calab fourth fourteen seventy four.

Manuel Ramirez 11:53

Thank

Peter Racobs 11:53

you. But Your Honor, neither rule three point eighteen hundred nor the Garcia versus Politas case require that the request for entry of default include a request for attorney's fees. When we look at Rule three point eighteen hundred, we see that three point eighteen hundred addresses seeking a default judgment on declarations. It is the actual application for entry of default judgment It is not the request for entry a default. which is a step prior to that. And at three point eighteen hundred A nine, it says that when you request entry of default judgment, one of the things that has to be included is a request for attorney's fees if allowed by statute or by agreement of the parties. In this case we had a right both under California statute and the C C and Rs to recover attorney's fees.

Peter Racobs 12:54

three point eighteen hundred does not mandate the contents of the request for an entry of default. It only addresses applications for default judgment. On February 29, 2024, Chardonnay Hills submitted its request for a default judgment. That request for a default judgment on declarations included the request for attorney's fees called for at 3.1800. That request was served on the defendants by mail at their three P.O. boxes on February 28th, and it stated among other other things that Chardonnay Hills sought a judgment that included ten thousand eight hundred nine dollars in attorney's fees plus costs. That's in the appendix at page one hundred fifty nine.