6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/04/09 - Apr 09, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/04/09

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 45m 8 chapters transcribed 9 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 updates does the court provide at the start of the session?

Unknown 3:26

Please be seated. Welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for oral argument this morning. We have three matters. And after the first matter is heard, we'll have a panel change. I'm going to make just a couple of announcements that relate to technology. The first is that it's the court's pleasure to offer remote access to self-represented litigants and attorneys who wish to appear for oral argument through video. If you are in the audience when this occurs, and we do have one case where there is someone appearing remotely, you'll be able to hear everything, but you will not be able to see. We here at the bench are able to see and hear, and so are those who are at council table because there are devices provided in those cases.

Unknown 4:19

If you want both the video and audio experience in a case where there is a remote appearance, you're welcome to step into the waiting room where we have a live stream, and you'd be able to both see and hear there. And in addition, we post our oral argument almost immediately after it occurs on our website, and you'd be able to access it there as well. Also related to technology, the justices have their laptops here at the bench. So if you see us looking off to the right, we have the briefs, the record, our notes, everything that we need this morning for oral argument, and we do it. We are modern. We do it through technology. All right. With that, I will call the first matter on calendar, H052154, County of Santa Clara Petitioner v.

Unknown 5:05

Public Employment Relations Board, or PIRB, respondent, and Service Employees International Union Local 521, SEIU 521, Real Party in Interest. I understand we're going to be hearing from three counsel this morning, so starting first, if I could obtain the appearance of petitioner's counsel and confirm your time estimate, please. We'll do all this from the podium

Raphael Regendra 5:31

because it is recorded, so... Thank you, Your Honors, and good morning. Raphael Regendra for Petitioner, County of Santa Clara. I'm Deputy County Counsel there, and I reserve five for rebuttal.

Unknown 5:40

All right, so ten and five for

Raphael Regendra 5:42

you. Ten and five, yes. All right, thank you

Unknown 5:43

very much. Thank you very much. Representing PERV this morning.

Kimberly Procida 5:48

Hi, yes, Kimberly Procida for the Public Employment Relations Board, and time estimate is ten minutes.

Unknown 5:53

All right, thank you. And appearing for SEIU 521.

Max Sinclair 5:59

Max Sinclair, appearing for Real Parties in Interest, Service Employees International Union, Local 521. Time estimate is five minutes.

Unknown 6:07

All right. Thank you very much. And also with you, counsel, this morning for a petitioner. Looks like you have co-counsel with you.

Raphael Regendra 6:17

I'm Richard Chiohira, lead deputy county counsel for the county of Santa Clara.

Unknown 6:21

All right. Thank you. And I understand we won't be hearing from you, but since you're here, I wanted to... Yes. stated on the record. Thank you very much. All right. Let's start with petitioner's argument. Thank you.

Raphael Regendra 6:35

Thank you, Your Honors, and good morning. We urge this court to vacate PERB's decision below and find no decision bargaining duty as a matter of law. Whether you approach the decision below through the Business and Professions Code or from within the MMBA itself, PERB's decision contradicts the law and relies on key factual assertions with no basis in the record. That makes it wrong twice over. The upshot is an order that the county bargained with SEIU over decisions that it doesn't make, that turns on an issue that's unequivocally outside the scope of bargaining, and that anyway has nothing to do with employment and everything to do with medical care for residents. First, the legislature specifically took away authority over the quality of medical care in all hospitals, public and private, from hospital owners like the county,

Raphael Regendra 7:20

invested it instead in doctors acting through medical staffs because they are the ones with professional competence and independence. And it's, of course, axiomatic that employers cannot bargain over decisions they don't control. Second, even if the legislature had said hospital owners could make decisions about the quality of patient care, that would still be outside the scope of bargaining