6DCA Oral Argument - 2025/11/18 Afternoon Session - Nov 18, 2025

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2025/11/18 Afternoon Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 2h 2m 8 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 announcements and remote‑appearance procedures were introduced at the start of the hearing?

Unknown 5:07

Good afternoon and please be seated. Welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for oral argument today. We have three matters on calendar, and before we start the calendar, I do have a few announcements to make. The first being that, actually all of them really related to technology, we offer the option for remote appearances, and it's our pleasure to do so here in the 6th District for council and for self-represented litigants alike. if you are sitting in the audience, you will not be able to see the individual who is appearing remotely. You will be able to hear them. If you want both experiences, you can step into our waiting room, and we have a live stream there, and you'll be able to see. Obviously, if you're at council table, we have devices so that everyone can see.

Unknown 6:17

And, of course, we can see here on the bench. You should also be aware that... the judges, justices, excuse me, have access to our laptops here on the bench. And we have the briefs, our notes, the record, everything that we need here. So if you see us looking off at our laptops, that's what's happening. There are three matters on calendar today. There will be panel changes between each case. And on the first matter, Justice Lee and I are joined by Judge Pro Temp Lisa Rodriguez, who is appearing remotely. So if you hear her voice disembodied, that's why in this matter. And Judge Rodriguez, thank you for appearing remotely with us under the circumstances. We appreciate it. All right. So I will start with the calendar at this time.

Unknown 7:12

H052240, Peter Ortiz, plaintiff and appellant versus Robert. I think it's signs. Not quite certain. Defendant and respondent, if I could have appellant's counsel's appearance first, please.

Matthew Schechter 7:28

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Matthew Schechter from McManus Faulkner on behalf of appellant.

Unknown 7:33

And Mr. Schechter, your time

Matthew Schechter 7:34

estimate? Asking for reserving three minutes for rebuttal of the 15.

Unknown 7:40

All right. Thank you very much. Appearing remotely today for Mr. I'm going to say signs again, but counsel, you correct me. Please push back if I'm wrong. If you could state your appearance and confirm your time estimate, sir.

Patrick Evans 7:54

Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Patrick Evans for the respondent. I believe it's pronounced Mr. Sainz, but I could be wrong on that, too.

Unknown 8:04

All right. And your time estimate was 15 minutes.

Patrick Evans 8:08

Yeah, hopefully less, depending on what my esteemed colleague has to say.

Unknown 8:11

All right. Thank you very much. So let's start with Appellants Council. And for both sides, we're very interested to hear your comments here today. You may proceed.

Matthew Schechter 8:22

Thank you. May it please the court. Your Honors, I think there are several errors of law that were committed by the trial court here in ruling on respondents' anti-slap motion that necessitate reversal. And the first one, and I think the one that is most particular to point out to the court, is that the trial court, contrary to what has been decided in the Bonnie case, did not take an individualized look at each of the acts that were alleged for purposes of the anti-SLAPP analysis. And that court made very clear that In deciding on an anti-slap motion, it could not look at if multiple acts were alleged, and that is certainly the situation here for purposes of the restraining order that was sought by appellant.

Matthew Schechter 9:13

The court cannot look at them as a general up or down altogether. They either stand or fail. The court needs to look at each of the acts and determine if each act was falls within protected activity and that the anti-slap motion theoretically could apply to, or if this is activity that is not protected and therefore would be sufficient to allow the claim to proceed. And to the extent that there may be some claims that would proceed and some wouldn't, the court has to make that individual claim by claim determination. That did not... Mr.

Unknown 9:47

Schechter, excuse me. Can we look at this record and the order that was issued by the trial court here and infer from the trial court's comments that it had concluded that of each of the discrete acts, none of them, or that all of them were protected?