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

argument

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

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 56m 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 is the anti‑SLAP statute and why is it central to this case?

Unknown 2:55

All right, the Court of Appeal for the 6th of 12th District is now a session. Presiding Justice the Ottawa Mary Jared Greenwood, Associate Justice the Honorable Allison M. Danner, and Associate Justice the Ottawa Daniel H. Proper.

Unknown 3:12

Good morning, welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for oral argument this morning and please be seated. Yeah. Before we start with our calendar today, let me make just a few announcements for we don't appear to have an audience today, um, but uh I will uh simply indicate that we are happy to provide the opportunity for remote appearances. um by counsel or self represented litigants in matters and uh when that occurs um the information can be accessed at council table but we don't have a a visual video here in the courtroom, we do in the waiting room and all of our oral arguments are archived almost immediately after um the session is completed and so uh they would be available in that way.

Unknown 4:03

Uh we have three matters on calendar. There will be no panel change. Um and we have access to technology here on the bench. So if you see us looking off to the right as I am right now, um uh we have the briefs, the record, our own notes, um and so forth. So um that's what we're doing up here. All right, give me just a minute to get situated. And we will call our first case.

Unknown 4:41

Uh matter number one on calendars H O five two five four one Sarah Khalil at all plaintiffs and respondents versus Max Steiner, defendant and appellant. Uh let's start with appellants counsel's appearance, which I'll have you do at the podium, please, uh and confirmation of your time estimate.

Josh Davis 5:00

Uh good morning, Your Honors Josh Davis for Appellant Max Steiner.

Unknown 5:03

All right, thank you. Oh

Josh Davis 5:04

it should be about ten minutes.

Unknown 5:05

All right, Mr. Davis. So ten minutes for opening, five for rebuttal. Reserve. All right, thank you very much. Uh I'll have you step aside and uh let's have respondents council step forward.

Tina Glazakos 5:16

Good morning, Your Honors, Tina Glazakos on behalf of respondents and my time estimate is ten minutes.

Unknown 5:22

All right, thank you very much, Glazakos. And um do you have counsel with you?

Tina Glazakos 5:26

Yes, Your Honor, my co counsel appearing with me today is Kelly Ganshi.

Unknown 5:30

All right, welcome. Thank you very much. All right, let's return to Appellance Council. Mr. Davis, we're interested to hear your comments this morning. Thank you.

Josh Davis 5:41

Good morning, may I please the court? My name's Josh Davis, counsel for Mac Steiner. Call it. Um this case involves the application of California's anti slap statute um to expressive conduct on one of the most divisive issues uh of this political moment and that's Israel and Palestine. The case arises from a a brief political confrontation on a Monterey sand dune. uh but it implicates far more than a momentary dispute. It raises questions At the heart of the anti slap statute. And that is can expressive political conduct in a public place on a subject that divides the public, divides communities, even divides families. Can it be recharacterized as torturous or hateful simply because the speaker is unpopular with their actions intense?

Josh Davis 6:31

And the legislators answered that question for us with clarity. And CCP section 425.16 exists to protect expressive activity on public issues in public forums. Regardless of the speaker's viewpoint, And regardless of the identities or the sympathies of the parties. Respondents came to Scribble Hill and wrote Free Palestine Seaweed. Political message. And they expressed it in a public forum. And Mr Steiner. He's a US military veteran. He disagreed with that message and he erased it. And told them why. Emotions ran high, the confrontation escalated, and the incident ended. А це сопли на батаре кас. Respondents chose to bring four additional claims. They chose to bring an assault claim, they chose to bring

Josh Davis 7:19

Uh The Ralph Act, the Bain Act, and a negligence claim. And they didn't base those claims solely on the physical contact, they pled them around Mr Steiner's political message. In the spoken words, his stated views and his expressive act of dismantling the free Palestine sign.