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

argument

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

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 44m 1 speaker 8 chapters transcribed 10 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What announcements did the court make about remote appearances and technology at the start of the session?

Theodore Boutrous 1:52

Good

Ann Timmer 2:03

morning. Welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for oral argument this morning, and please be seated. We have four cases on calendar this morning. There will not be a panel change today. The final two cases, matters three and four, are being considered together, argued at the same time. Before we commence with the arguments, I'd like to make two announcements. One is that it's our pleasure to be able to afford the opportunity for parties to appear remotely for oral argument if that's something that they wish to do. And in fact, that is happening in the last two cases

Unknown 2:43

we have on

Ann Timmer 2:44

calendar today. For those who are sitting in the courtroom, you should be aware of the fact that, in the audience, you should be aware of the fact that when parties appear remotely, you will be able to hear everything that happens, but we don't have a screen for you to be able to see. We see, up here at the bench, counsel is able to see it at a counsel table if we have someone appearing remotely. here in court, and an opponent appearing remotely. If you wish both the video and audio experience, you can step into the waiting room where we have a live stream. In addition, we post and archive oral argument recordings that have both the video and audio almost immediately after oral arguments, so they'd be available there.

Ann Timmer 3:30

And since I'm discussing technology, the justices have... laptops here at the bench. So if you see us looking to the right, we have our notes, the briefs, the record, everything that we need for oral argument here in the courtroom. So don't be surprised if you see that. Give me just a moment to plug in, as it were, and then we can start.

Ann Timmer 4:12

Matter number one on calendar is H052520, in re the marriage of, I think it's Zeng, am I correct? All right, Zeng and Mo, and appearing as appellant is Ms. Zeng. So what I'm going to do is have you go to the podium and just state that you're present and give me your, we're going to confirm your time estimate, and then I'll come back to you. So can you go to the podium for me, Ms. Zeng? So you indicated that you wanted 15 minutes for argument. Is that right?

Unknown 4:50

I think maybe 15 minutes in total should be fine. All right.

Ann Timmer 4:55

So, you know, you're entitled to rebuttal. So we can divide that. So if you would like 10 minutes to open and five for rebuttal after Mr. Barrett speaks, that would be fine, or whatever you would like to do in terms of dividing the time.

Unknown 5:10

But

Ann Timmer 5:10

I wanted you to know you have a rebuttal opportunity. All right? Thank you,

Unknown 5:14

yeah. All

Ann Timmer 5:14

right. That sounds great. All right. Thank you. So if you just step aside for a moment, I'm going to have counsel for respondent state your appearance and confirm your time estimate. Good

James Barrett 5:23

morning. James Barrett for respondent. And as far as my time, I believe that I'll need no more in the event of a rebuttal of one

Ann Timmer 5:32

minute. Actually, sir, you're not entitled to rebuttal. Well, thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Ms. Zeng, let's hear from you first, please.

Unknown 5:46

Um, so my name is, uh, one shot saying I'm here to ask you to speak up just a little bit. Okay. My name is one shot saying I'm here to appeal for, um, misinterpretation of a court order, um, in 2024. for the order original actually from 2022. So I want to give a little background of this case. This is a 16 to 17 year old marriage, me and respondent married for 16, 17 years and we have three young children together. In 2020, we filed DVRO and divorced from the respondent. So everything, was actually going well in terms of the support orders start from the very beginning in July 2020, because majority of respondents income was actually from his commission. So we always had a bonus table attached to the court orders.

Unknown 6:46

And I think starting from 2022, we started to have a little bit of modification in the support orders because I started to have a job reentering the workforce after 17 years staying in a marriage and staying at home to support a family. So as a result, the judge started to modify the support orders, but however, there has always been a bonus table attached.