6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/08/11 Morning Session - Aug 11, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/08/11 Morning Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 2h 22m 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 procedural rules does the Sixth District Court of Appeal follow for oral arguments?

Unknown 7:41

Good morning, please be seated and welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for oral argument today. The court has both a morning and an afternoon session. There are four matters on calendar this morning. There will be panel changes um between the cases. Um And uh um Let me also just mention one thing with re uh two things with respect to technology. The first thing is that uh the justices have our laptops here on the bench and so if you see us looking off to the right we have the briefs or notes. Everything we need for oral argument is here. Um Uh so be aware of that. And the second is it's a our our um Our pleasure to offer the opportunity for remote. um participation by counsel or self-represented litigants and oral argument.

Unknown 8:30

Our first few cases don't have remote appearances. Um but for those of you who are in the audience, when there is a remote appearance you'll be able to hear everything that's being said, but you won't you we don't have a screen, so you won't be able to see it. Everyone at council table, everyone at the bench, uh we have access to be able to get a visual. If you want both the audio and the visual experience. You can step outside into our waiting room where we have live streaming and you'd be able to see and hear both. But you should also be aware that uh oral argument is also archived on our website almost immediately after the proceedings and so you'd be able to access both there as well. With that, uh let me just get situated and we will start the first case.

Unknown 9:26

Matter number one on calendars H O five two seven zero one in Ray the marriage of Michael and Stella Rosenden. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. Michael Rosenden respondent versus Stella Rosenden appellant. Uh if I could have appellants counsel Um go to the podium, state your appearance and confirm your time estimate, please.

Kirsten Alt 9:49

Good morning. Uh may it please support Kirsten Alt for Stella Rosenden. Uh I believe the court has graciously granted us twenty uh minutes for argument. Uh we would like fifteen minutes for our opening and then we would uh with the permission of the court like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal.

Unknown 10:05

All right, thank you very much, Ms. Alt. And uh hearing for respondent, I'll have you go to the podium. It's because everything's re uh recorded.

Garrett C. Daly 10:13

Good morning, Your Honors. If it please the court, Garrett C. Daly, for respondent Michael Rosident.

Unknown 10:18

All right. And you estimated twenty minutes, Mr. Daly. Yes, ma'am. All right, thank you very much. Uh, we are eager to hear we're eager to hear comments from both Both sides today. Interesting case, so. Uh you go ahead.

Kirsten Alt 10:31

We re we agree that it is an interesting case, Your Honor. Uh this case is fundamentally about legislative intent. First, what did the legislature intend when it enacted section four three three seven? which automatically terminates spousal support upon death or remarriage. And second, did the legislature's enactment of California's comprehensive domestic partnership uh legislation in 2005 changed the legislature's intent with respect to section four three three seven? The answer to the both of those questions, well the answer to that question is no. So first, uh starting with the language of the statute at issue, which is four three three seven, as we must, uh our goal is to determine the intent of the legislature.

Kirsten Alt 11:15

And the d legislature clearly intended for the harsh sanction of automatic termination to apply only when the party has attained one of two legal statuses death or remarriage. The legislature could not have intended for section four three three seven to apply to domestic partnership when it enacted four three three seven because domestic partnership didn't exist. Um so It's clear what the language the language means what it says, which hopefully is usually how the legislature does it, although not always. It's unquestioned that style.

Unknown 11:49

Often not, let's be candid,

Kirsten Alt 11:51

but It is unquestioned uh that well, however, your honor, we are supposed to presume. Yes, I am. Uh it is unquestioned that Stella is neither dead nor is she remarried.