6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/09/08 Afternoon Session - Sep 08, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/09/08 Afternoon Session

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 42m 8 chapters transcribed 15 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of the oral argument and who are the parties involved?

Unknown 3:00

Good afternoon, and please be seated. Welcome to the Six District Court of Appeal for oral argument this afternoon. The court has three matters before it today, all three related to the same tragic incident. There's some overlap in counsel also. But we will be hearing the matter separately, so we will simply go through the calendar as it is set up now, unless I hear something different from anyone. That's our intention. Matter number one on calendar is 051841, Wendy Towner et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants versus the City of Gilroy et al., including City of Gilroy, Gilroy Garlic Festival Association, and First Alarm Security and Patrol, Inc. If I could have counsels. appearance at the podium, please, because we record everything that does occur here in court.

Unknown 3:58

If you could state your appearance and confirm your time estimate, and I'm going to do that with each counsel, please. All right. Thank you,

Valerie McGinty 4:06

Your

Unknown 4:07

Honors. Valerie McGinty

Valerie McGinty 4:08

for

Unknown 4:08

appellants,

Valerie McGinty 4:09

and we ask for

Unknown 4:09

15 minutes. All right.

Valerie McGinty 4:11

And you

Unknown 4:11

wanted to divide it as appellants between 10 and then 5 for rebuttal?

Valerie McGinty 4:15

Yes,

Unknown 4:15

please. All right. And for both you, Ms. McGinty, and for all counsel, I'll give you a two-minute warning. Thank you. Before your 10 is up, so you reserve your rebuttal time. All right. Thank you. Moving then to counsel for the City of Gilroy.

Jeff Vucinich 4:30

Yes. Jeff Vucinich for the City of Gilroy. And I estimate 10, 15 minutes or whatever length of time the court wants.

Unknown 4:38

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Vucinich.

Jeff Vucinich 4:40

Thank you.

Unknown 4:41

And for Gilroy Garlic Festival Association.

Edward Hoffman 4:49

Good afternoon, Your Honors. May it please the court. Edward Hoffman on behalf of Responding Gilroy Garlic Festival Association. I estimate 10 minutes.

Unknown 4:57

All right. Thank you very much.

Edward Hoffman 4:59

Thank

Unknown 4:59

you. and for First Alarm Security and Patrol, Inc.

Robert Cooper 5:06

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Robert Cooper on behalf of Respondent First Alarm Security. All right. About 10 minutes.

Unknown 5:11

Thank you very much. All right. So let's start with Appellant's Counsel, Ms. McGinty. We're eager to hear what you and all counsel have to say today.

Valerie McGinty 5:26

Thank you so much, Your Honors. Good afternoon. Valerie McGinty for Appellants. We want to thank the Court for taking the time and effort to send us the letter before oral argument, and I'll go right to the court's questions.

Unknown 5:41

Thank

Valerie McGinty 5:42

you. As to the private defendants, the court's first question on the private defendants asked the parties to explain the factors of how burdensome plaintiff's proposed measures would be, and as well as how foreseeable the third party conduct was in this case. And I want to put this question in the context of the two Supreme Court cases, of course, that were cited also in the court's letter. The first is Brown versus USA Taekwondo. And that case reaffirmed that the proper method of analysis, which was also used in the Regents case, is first to look to see whether there is a special relationship that creates a duty to use reasonable care to protect victims. And if there is, then to look at the role and factors to determine

Valerie McGinty 6:31

whether to recognize an exception to the affirmative duty to protect. And so that's the process that we're going through today. And the Castaneda case, also a Supreme Court case, explained that where there is that special relationship, that the role in factors should be analyzed using a sliding scale, balancing formula. And it talked about and explained how this works, so that, for example, in cases where the harm can be prevented by simple means. A lesser degree of foreseeability may be required. So as we today look at this question and balance the burden against the foreseeability, two things are striking to me. The first is that a review of the first alarm and GGFA's briefing shows that neither of their briefs even claimed, let alone established,

Valerie McGinty 7:26

that securing the perimeter gate was simply too burdensome.

Unknown 7:33

You're not just talking about securing the perimeter gate. Your complaint is predicated on the idea that it's not just this one vulnerability in the gate or the one gate that's standing open. but that there needs to be a taller perimeter fence, that it needs to be essentially impenetrable or alternatively under continuous visual monitoring to ensure that any undetected entry, well, to prevent against any possible undetected entry