6DCA Oral Argument - 2025/10/14 Afternoon Session - Oct 14, 2025

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2025/10/14 Afternoon Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 7m 8 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 is the procedural background and who are the justices presiding over the October 14 oral argument?

Unknown 1:32

All right, record of appeal for the 6th L District is 9 session. I think Presiding Justice, the Honorable Allison M. Banner, Associate Justice, the Honorable Timothy C. Lee, and Associate Justice, the Honorable Daniel H. Crowner. Good afternoon, please be seated.

Unknown 2:03

Welcome to the sixth district court of appeal for oral argument. We have two matters on calendar this afternoon and a panel change. I will call the first case H zero five two four four four four four four nine eight City of Morgan Hill, plaintiff and respondent versus W Rocky Garcia et al. Defendants and Appellants and I will take appearance from uh counsel for appellants and time estimate, please.

Norm Maddioni 2:31

Good afternoon, honorable justices. May it please the court. I am Norm Maddioni, appearing on behalf of the appellant in this matter.

Unknown 2:39

Good afternoon. And we have written that you're requesting eight and seven. Is that correct?

Norm Maddioni 2:44

That is correct.

Unknown 2:44

All right, thank you very much. If you could have a seat for one moment, please. Uh for counsel for responding please.

Nick Muscolino 2:51

Uh Nick Muscolino for the City of Morgan Hill.

Unknown 2:54

Uh good afternoon. And your fifteen minutes?

Nick Muscolino 2:56

Yes, please.

Unknown 2:57

Okay, thank you. Mr. Maddioni, you'll have you come back to the uh podium please. And for both sides I will keep time here on my computer and let you know when you have about a minute left. Uh for time.

Norm Maddioni 3:08

Actually I think the timing was reversed. I had seven and then eight for rebuttal.

Unknown 3:13

Oh okay. Let's w You can do whatever you want. Is is that w what you would like, seven and eight?

Norm Maddioni 3:19

I would, thank you. All right.

Unknown 3:22

Let me just get uh the time set up, please. One minute.

Unknown 3:34

Please go ahead, thank you.

Norm Maddioni 3:36

On reflection, your honors, and reviewing the matter for argument today, I've come to the conclusion that the case is not as complicated as the briefing might have indicated. It's it's really directed to one key principle and the judge below failed to apply the project influence rule to the facts of the case. The reason the court did not properly apply the rule is the court considered that there were no expectations of entitlement. No expectations at the time the property was purchased in the nineteen seventies, and no expectation at the time that the case was to be valued the date of value in October or November twenty eighteen. What the court failed to look at is the specific reference of the staff report to the city council on appeal by Mr.

Norm Maddioni 4:40

Garcia, who was denied the opportunity to present his application for entitlement in 2013. And if I can read that, it's very clear. Quote The general plan clearly identifies the subject property as being planned for future roadway construction. and the proposed residential development. Of the property. Would be inconsistent with that construction. That is precisely what project influence rule addresses. You are to disregard any preliminary steps taken by the condemning agency toward acquisition as it affects value. So when I say the case is not as complicated as maybe we briefed it. We certainly went down the path of many issues. I say that on the basis of the Barrett American decision because I think it has all the ingredients that this court needs to make the decision on behalf of our client.

Norm Maddioni 5:50

Baron American Dealt with a competing no project rule. Oh Yeah. There is no project At all. It doesn't exist. Or the project was abandoned as of the data value. as a city in city of San Diego versus Baron America can contend it. Those are both hypotheticals. which is an underlying theme that the city presses in its briefing. All condemnation valuation is based on hypothetical situations. But both American recognizes the hypothetical and chose the proper hypothetical that applies to this case. The no project construct. Disregard any preliminary steps. Ignore any movement to implement the project before the condemnation applies or it takes place. Burn American also had several other points that resonate with our case.

Norm Maddioni 7:00

There was a circulation element defining the path of the SR route, state route fifty six. There was interim zoning of agriculture to hold that in place pending acquisition.