6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/05/14 Afternoon Session - May 14, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/05/14 Afternoon Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 59 min 1 speaker 4 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 procedural steps does the court follow at the start of the oral argument?

Unknown 3:00

And good afternoon. Please have a seat. We do have two matters on calendar this afternoon. We will have a full panel change in between them, so we needn't take a formal recess, but we will have a little bit of time in between the cases. I see we have some parties here in person, and then Mr. Contreras is joining us remotely. Good afternoon, sir.

Armando Contreras 3:21

Good afternoon, justices.

Unknown 3:22

I will go ahead then and call the first matter. I'll invite you to state your appearances and give your time estimates, and then we'll hear your arguments. Then, as I say, we'll have a full panel change, and then the next panel under the leadership of acting Presiding Justice Danner will call the next case. So taking up the matter of Panelog and Contreras, Mr. Hefei, since you are present, why don't you go ahead and come to the lectern, confirm your appearance and time estimate, and then we'll go ahead and hear from Mr. Contreras, and then he can just continue with his argument.

Paymon Hefei 4:01

Good afternoon. Paymon Hefei, appearing on behalf of Respondent. Manuel Panalag, my time estimate should be approximately under five minutes.

Unknown 4:09

Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank

Paymon Hefei 4:10

you.

Unknown 4:11

And so, Mr. Contreras, I know you had requested some additional time. We will like to hear you for 15 minutes, but if you are engaged with questions and answers with our justices, then I'll try to be a little generous with the time.

Armando Contreras 4:30

OK, thank you. Yes, Armando Contreras, the appellate appearing. And I did split up my time. I'm not sure if they told

Unknown 4:36

you. I see that on the calendar it looks like you are requesting eight minutes to open and then reserve seven minutes to rebut. Yes. All right, very good. Well, we're ready to hear what you have to say.

Armando Contreras 4:49

okay thank you justices and good afternoon i respectfully request that the court reverse the lower court's right to attach order because there was no evidence of any ascertainable judgment that gives the right to attach order against me under california law the lower court committed reversible error when it said there was substantial evidence against me personally but for the error of the lower court the outcome of this case would have been different The lower court based this substantial evidence entirely on an uncooperated and unsubstantiated doctor's declaration that was proffered for a different motion. It was proffered for an opposition to arbitration that was a condition preceding this complaint.

Armando Contreras 5:28

Opposing counsel did not want to attend arbitration. The fact is, there is no evidence of a doctor's declaration in support of a right to attach order anywhere on the court record. This doctor's declaration is not competent evidence because it provides no identifying information or foundational information, no address, no license information, no specialty, and no showing that the doctor is qualified to diagnose dementia in California. There was also no reporting to the Department of Motor Vehicles that the respondent has dementia. In nine paragraphs of this doctor's declaration, the court can see literally not one paragraph gives concrete clinical detail about the respondent's alleged dementia. It reads less like medicine and more like litigation written by Horner Law Group.

Armando Contreras 6:16

Further, it's not written on this doctor's letterhead. It's written on Horner Law Group's legal caption page. This is not a medical opinion, but a drafted Bay conclusion for litigation. And that does not give rise to a substantial evidence for a right to attach order against me personally. The writ should be vacated for four independent reasons, Your Honor. Number one, there was no lawful basis to attach my personal assets. The transaction at issue was between New Chance LLC and the respondent, not myself at all. So there was no written contract between the respondent and me personally ever. There was no personal guarantee and no evidentiary basis for alter ego liability anywhere on record. Further, Corporations Code 17703.04 protects LLC members from personal liability absent a proper showing to disregard the entity.

Armando Contreras 7:10

And here, there is no evidence of disregarding the entity whatsoever.