6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/02/17 Morning Session - Feb 17, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/02/17 Morning Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 2h 35m 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 technology instructions are given at the start of the session?

Unknown 1:10

Yes for real.

Unknown 1:19

No okay.

Unknown 1:28

And you see you have to have it. Mm. Yeah, yeah.

Unknown 1:48

Most of that screen about.

Unknown 2:04

So I can questions.

Unknown 2:37

You may you know another class.

Unknown 2:54

process right now. See.

Unknown 3:06

All right, the Court of Appeal for the 6th Apoll District is now in session. Presiding Justice, the Honorable Mary Drake, Associate Justice, the Honorable Adrian M. Grover, and Justice Coach of the Honorable Sunil of R.

Mary Drake 3:20

Welcome, please be seated. Welcome. Uh for oral argument at the Sixth District Court of Appeal this morning we have An ambitious calendar, and we're happy to see all of you here. Thank you for coming in. Rainy day. Uh so there will be panel changes today and let me make uh just a couple of other announcements, um both related to technology. Um There will be some uh parties who will be appearing remotely today. If you are at council's table, you'll have a device and you'll be able to see and hear everything that's happening. We also have devices here on the bench. The justices are able to see and hear. um the parties when during argument. If you're in the audience, you can hear everything but you won't get the video.

Mary Drake 4:07

We don't have a screen for you. If you want both the audio and video experience then you can step into the waiting room. Um and uh we have a live stream of oral argument. In addition, we archive uh our oral arguments almost immediately after the proceedings on our website and there you'd be able to both see and hear if that is your desire. Also related to technology, the justices have our laptops here. Um and so you'll see us looking off to the right. We have the briefs, our notes, the record, everything that we could need for oral argument this morning. Sophie see us looking over that's why. All right, I will call the calendar. First matter on calendars H O five two zero three zero, Scott Hugh, plaintiff and appellant, versus Zoom Video Communications, Inc.

Mary Drake 4:55

at all defendants and respondents. Um if I could have appellants counsel. Um Stand at the podium and announce your appearance please. Yes. And a time estimate.

Stuart Hayes 5:06

Yes, this is Stuart Hayes, appellate counsel for Scott U.

Mary Drake 5:12

All right, thank you. Um you indicated fifteen to open and five for rebuttal.

Stuart Hayes 5:16

Yes, Your Honor.

Mary Drake 5:17

All right, thank you. Um, I'm gonna have you just step aside because everything has to be through that microphone. I need respondents counsel to announce her appearance here. That's all right.

Caroline Label 5:26

Uh good morning, Your Honors, Caroline Label for Defendant Respondents, Mr. Yuan and Zoom. All right. And you provided

Mary Drake 5:33

a twenty minute estimate. That's

Caroline Label 5:34

correct, Ron.

Mary Drake 5:35

All right, thank you. Mr. Hayes, we're ready to hear your comments. Thank you.

Stuart Hayes 5:42

May it please the court. Thank you, uh Justices. Um this is an appeal from a um judgment on a demur sustaining that demur. Um And the uh the appellant is seeking reversal and remand uh at this appellate level for a number of uh judicial errors along the way. Principally um We're seeking

How do the parties frame the contract‑formation dispute between Scott Yu and Zoom?

Stuart Hayes 6:12

that uh the overruling and reversal Um acknowledges the fact that disputed issues of fact were resolved at the trial court level without the opportunity for discovery or at a minimum without the opportunity for uh leave uh to amend. And uh this is um Uh this uh decision on dis disputed factual um inferences and disputed facts occurred in a series of uh facts along the way.

Mary Drake 6:50

So Mr. Hayes, uh excuse me for interrupting you, but just um to make certain that we're all on the same page here, um Uh is it your understanding that um you bear the burden here?

Stuart Hayes 7:03

bear the burden

Mary Drake 7:04

to show um that the trial court erred, correct? In sustaining the demer

Stuart Hayes 7:09

it is uh our burden is simply to show reasonableness, a very low bar. This is a a d de novo review.

Greg Zwicki 7:17

Okay.

Stuart Hayes 7:17

Uh clear and convincing is a trial standard is not appropriate here. Very low. Right.

Mary Drake 7:23

It's de novo review, but you bear the burden of demonstrating that the court erred when it granted the demur, correct?

Stuart Hayes 7:29

We bear Yes. To show that we pled uh facts um w and uh inferences to a reasonable level. And to the extent that there are multiple uh interpretations of what reasonable might be in a factual context and an inference context.