4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2025/12/3 Morning Session - Dec 03, 2025

argument

4DCA Division 2 Oral Argument 2025/12/3 Morning Session

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two 2h 54m 5 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What opening remarks and introductions are made at the beginning of the oral argument?

Unknown 8:45

All right.

Manuel Ramirez 8:51

To all uh good morning, thank you. Please be seated.

Manuel Ramirez 9:04

Expected more people in the courtroom this morning. But uh this is a nice enough crowd. We can work with this. Madam Clerk, good morning. Uh it's always my pleasure, my honor to introduce my colleagues appearing before you. One, Justice Miller will be appearing uh remotely, uh off site. Justice Miller, good morning.

Justice Miller 9:24

Good morning. Nice to see you.

Manuel Ramirez 9:25

Can everybody see Justice Miller? Very good. And then on your right, my left is Justice Minitrez. Good morning. He and I are together for the uh very first case this morning. And then later this morning you'll see the various panels uh jumping on the bench and getting off. My name is Manuel Ramirez, and it's my pleasure to preside over uh for this panel, case number uh twelve. Uh I did want to take a moment, uh Officer, good morning to you as well. We have a um New officer uh training for this uh Court Courthouse, Officer uh Oh my gosh. Uh Melissa Fernandez, do I have that right? Good morning. Welcome. And uh some time in the next month or two or three we'll find out whether or not Uh your training here has been successful or the administrative moves have been successful and that'll determine whether or not you become part of uh

Manuel Ramirez 10:24

This judicial protection unit staff, is that correct? Okay. In the meantime, uh welcome. And uh we do have uh for the entire state of California at the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court uh outstanding and professional group of men and women who are part of the uh judicial protection unit. So It's always noteworthy to share that. So good morning.

Brandon Sanchez 10:46

Good morning.

Manuel Ramirez 10:46

How are you? I'm doing well, how are you? Doing well, thank you. So um how about your appearance for the record, please?

Brandon Sanchez 10:53

My name is Brandon Sanchez. I'm here on behalf of respondents City of Cathedral City. And my last name is spelled.

Brian Sutherland 11:05

Good good morning, your honors. My name is Brian Sutherland on behalf of Appellant Alessandro Montanaro. Okay.

Manuel Ramirez 11:12

I just want to make sure, counsel, that you received this court's uh previous orders. I think there were two regarding the uh micus, uh the incorporation of argument as well as the appearance of micus. Both of those orders were denied. D do you recall that?

Brian Sutherland 11:25

Yes, Your Honor.

Manuel Ramirez 11:26

Okay. So with that, uh why don't you have a seat? And uh Sutherland, you're on the clock.

Brian Sutherland 11:34

May it please the court. Uh again I'm Brian Sutherland on behalf of appellant Alessandra Montanaro, who I represent pro bono.

Manuel Ramirez 11:42

I'd like to reserve four minutes. control or jurisdiction over a case that started out in in uh the trial court uh in this case uh it comes to us with arguments uh centered around the uh seventh amendment and uh the uh Jarski case as well as uh uh prohibition against excessive fines and costs. Uh that's how we framed it in the tent of opinion. I I assume you have that tent of opinion and you've reviewed it.

Brian Sutherland 12:12

I have reviewed it, Your Honor. And if I I wanted to Reserve time for rebuttal, if I may. We wanted to get that. Four minutes if I could.

Manuel Ramirez 12:22

That's noted. Thank you.

Brian Sutherland 12:24

And then yes, Your Honor, I have reviewed the tentative. I'm familiar with it. I appreciate the constitutional rulings. I uh cannot withdraw the arguments that we've already made with respect to those rulings, but I'd like to use my time here today to address a point that uh Ms. Montanaro raised in her reply brief and I can explain the circumstances for the request. The argument found at pages twelve to fourteen of the reply is that cathedral city did not designate the violation at issue here. As a misdemeanor. Under the city's municipal code, it was an infraction. This is a pure question of law and if the court reaches it it requires reversal and there are compelling reasons to do so. First, the same considerations that led the appellate division to reverse continue to apply.

Brian Sutherland 13:17

Ms. Montanaro had no right to counsel below and hiring a lawyer to contest a five thousand dollar fine makes no economic sense. And so her arguments here have been hampered by a lack of representation. Which I think is understandable under the circumstances. And informal administrative proceedings without counsel and without a state provided transcript create conditions where a forfeiture of some kind is almost really inevitable and it would be somewhat unfair for the city to choose an administrative path, knowing that most people in her position lack the ability to preserve key arguments and then