6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/02/19 Afternoon Session - Feb 19, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/02/19 Afternoon Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 45 min 8 chapters transcribed 10 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What opening statements and appearances did the court record at the start of the oral argument?

Unknown 0:32

Other people yeah, that's that A lot of work for a little back. Mm. Well, a lot of people like it. You've also had more water? Yeah, yeah.

Unknown 2:59

Right. Refresh kind of thing. Rush off. Yeah. I think it looks like.

Unknown 3:54

Yeah. Yeah, supposedly uh. Yeah. Because you go back, you can turn on like I'm going to pop. Yeah one.

Unknown 4:21

Yeah. So our age. Oh, army sets right. Yeah, you did? Yeah. Maybe I didn't. Okay. Maybe it was a little bit. Oh no, but

Unknown 4:49

Yeah.

Unknown 4:57

First. Yeah. All right, the court will take for the sixth oft district of town session. I think presenting Justice New Only on eighth of October. So say Justice outside of that. And good afternoon. Please be seated. We have one matter on calendar here this afternoon, uh Li versus Ryu. And um I invite council to Correct my pronunciation. Um, we do have both counsel present in court today and we do appreciate that as well. So if you'll give us just a moment, we will connect our technology that gives us access to briefs and the record. And our notes. And then I think we're ready to begin. We'll go ahead and uh I'll invite you to state your appearances and confirm your time estimates. Um perhaps we can begin with respondents counsel at the podium so that our recording and live streaming will pick you up.

Unknown 5:58

Um and then after you have a seat we can hear from Appellance Council and then you could commence your argument.

Ruben Kahn 6:05

Thank you, Your Honor. Ruben Kahn on behalf of respondents, including Ms. Ryu and K and L Supply Company.

Unknown 6:12

Very good. And I think your time estimate this afternoon is fifteen minutes. Fifteen

Ruben Kahn 6:15

minutes, correct.

Unknown 6:16

All right, thank you. And for our appellant.

Cindy Tobisman 6:21

Cindy Tobusman here on behalf of Appellant Joe Lee. And your time estimate? Tentatively twelve minutes and three minutes, but we'll see how many questions I get.

Unknown 6:31

Very good. Then uh if you're ready, you may go ahead.

Cindy Tobisman 6:42

May it please the court. This is a case that is a summary judgment case where you may, yes. Let me see if I can do that, if I can figure it out. Okay, here we go. Okay, I'll start again. This is a summary judgment case where the judge never looked at the evidence giving rise to tribal issues of fact because he believed he didn't need to. He had three reasons that he gave. None of them

How did Respondents’ counsel outline the three grounds for summary judgment?

Cindy Tobisman 7:15

hold water and I'll go through them and I'll pause and see if anybody has any questions for me on any of these. The first is he didn't think that elder abuse had been pled. This is kind of frankly sort of outrageous. There are thirty paragraphs in the complaint that go into all manner of vulnerability, of misreused positions of authority, multiple ones that would qualify under the statutory factors in fifteen uh six ten seventy. Her tactics and the result. Mr. Ли Лос Еврит. Forty million dollars in company assets, his house which Miss Ryu is now living in. And the court took the view that the that the something about the complaint I guess didn't suffice and so therefore court didn't need to look at the evidence because this was an unplugged theory.

Cindy Tobisman 8:10

The the complaint itself is pretty clearly lays out not just those thirty paragraphs. There is a separately titled fourth cause of action for elder abuse that recites the statutory scheme. And of course, if there was any issue with the pleading, the issue would be resolved by allowing leave to amend. So the court sort of closed its eyes to the entirety of it. And the fallacy in all of this is that this wasn't an elder abuse case given that it had been litigated as such for three years. The TRO papers filed just a few months after the complaint recite that this is a financial elder abuse case that stems primarily from the conduct of Christy Rue over the last few years when she wrongfully took or misappropriated approximately forty million dollars worth of assets from

Cindy Tobisman 8:58

Mr. Lee who was eighty eight. That's just four four months later. Defendant's motion to quash just a few months after that acknowledges the gravement of the complaint is that Miss Rue coerced and manipulated Mr. Lee to take control of his assets. And on and on. Even the trial court. In this case in December uh twenty twenty three says, as this court has previously noted, the core contention in this case is that Ryu coerced and manipulated Lee so as to take control of his assets and companies.