[00:00:16] Speaker 06:
married biological parents.

[00:00:49] Speaker 06:
code makes it illegal makes it

[00:01:42] Speaker 05:
They didn't have notice of the hearing.

[00:01:44] Speaker 06:
No, Your Honor.

[00:01:45] Speaker 06:
We take it in the context of the lies and deception that will follow.

[00:01:52] Speaker 06:
We will demonstrate.

[00:01:53] Speaker 05:
In other words, this case was so... You're trying to impeach the testimony indirectly because you don't have any direct evidence to refute it.

[00:02:05] Speaker 06:
There's no direct evidence that they

[00:02:25] Speaker 06:
we are.

[00:02:27] Speaker 06:
But we have the record is full of deceit and lies.

[00:02:31] Speaker 06:
Judicial deception will be.

[00:02:33] Speaker 06:
I understand.

[00:02:34] Speaker 05:
Your point is that it's not believable because of all the other evidence.

[00:02:37] Speaker 06:
Exactly.

[00:02:55] Speaker 04:
said that Spiller Montgomery deceived the court.

[00:03:00] Speaker 04:
Don't you have to show either a conspiracy with the county is one of your claims or that Spiller Montgomery are state actors?

[00:03:12] Speaker 04:
So the question whether or not there was judicial deception doesn't seem to be that relevant.

[00:03:19] Speaker 06:
Well, I intend to get to

[00:03:34] Speaker 06:
Certainly are.

[00:03:43] Speaker 06:
In her desire to gain guardianship of Appellant's daughter, Ms.

[00:03:46] Speaker 06:
Montgomery revived a seven-year-old claim, which police had already found lacking in merit.

[00:03:52] Speaker 06:
Following a complaint with the Department of Children's and Family Services,

[00:03:57] Speaker 06:
delayed the hearing in order to receive the report.

[00:04:01] Speaker 06:
Five days before the 12-11 hearing, DCFS reported that its investigation was incomplete.

[00:04:09] Speaker 06:
The matter was closed.

[00:04:11] Speaker 06:
This result was known to all parties, including Miners' Council, William Spiller,

[00:04:16] Speaker 06:
Respondents Spiller and Montgomery showed up at the hearing with a fabricated story that appellants were on the lam and avoiding the proceedings.

[00:04:27] Speaker 06:
Well, in fact, they simply had never been served notice.

[00:04:31] Speaker 06:
That's the position.

[00:04:33] Speaker 06:
Furthermore, Mr. Spiller fraudulently concealed the DCFS report and lied to the court, stating that he had fouled his own report.

[00:04:43] Speaker 06:
He had not.

[00:04:50] Speaker 06:
ports, DCFSN, Mr. Spillard's, and MODIS, before ruling on the guardianship, rule it did.

[00:04:59] Speaker 06:
Fragile, deceitful, and intentional deception of the court were the plausible and illogical conclusions to be drawn, given Spillard's prior state border discipline for fraud and moral turpitude.

[00:05:21] Speaker 06:
All factual disputes must be resolved in favor of appellants.

[00:05:25] Speaker 05:
Counsel, you're here on a federal civil rights claim.

[00:05:29] Speaker 05:
Was there any effort made under the state equivalent of a Rule 60B motion to reopen the child custody judgment on the basis of these allegations so that a full evidentiary hearing might have been conducted by the Superior Court Judge into these allegations?

[00:05:58] Speaker 05:
So the answer is no, there was no effort made at that time to reopen.

[00:06:07] Speaker ?:
So the problem you have here before us – you've got a number of problems under 1983.

[00:06:13] Speaker 05:
Where is the state action?

[00:06:16] Speaker 05:
Where is the – who are the actors here that are state officers?

[00:06:22] Speaker 06:
So may I – I'll get to that.

[00:06:24] Speaker 06:
I'm addressing that.

[00:06:25] Speaker 05:
That's my question.

[00:06:26] Speaker 05:
So let's get to it now.

[00:06:34] Speaker 06:
In order to state a minel claim against county, we must allege that the county has a policy or custom by which, making false representations to the court as a prelude to seize children and apply minors' counselment is allowable.

[00:06:50] Speaker 06:
While we have not yet reached discovery, we believe that discovery will lay out more facts regarding these matters.

[00:07:08] Speaker 04:
plausible.

[00:07:10] Speaker 04:
And when I reviewed your complaint, it makes conclusory statements that there was a conspiracy or that there was that LA County had a policy of permitting false representations to the court as a pretext for ceasing children.

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
So there was bare allegations, but there wasn't any examples or weren't any details.

[00:07:33] Speaker 04:
What else is there in the record that would

[00:07:41] Speaker 04:
get more plausible.

[00:07:46] Speaker 06:
Well, in the complaint itself of the First Amendment, we do have many allegations that amount to judicial deception and misrepresentation or lying to the court.

[00:08:29] Speaker 06:
the information necessary to pick up the child.

[00:08:32] Speaker 06:
These are representations that he made of joint action.

[00:08:38] Speaker 06:
And we believe that we will, we actually could file a revised Second Amendment complaint

[00:08:56] Speaker 06:
this has been done.

[00:08:57] Speaker 06:
These we didn't have before we began.

[00:09:01] Speaker 06:
These we have are people who have approached us and said, gee, we have a similar case.

[00:09:06] Speaker 06:
We have a similar case.

[00:09:07] Speaker 06:
We have a similar case.

[00:09:09] Speaker 06:
Multiple cases.

[00:09:12] Speaker 06:
But they came to us too late to bring in at this point.

[00:09:16] Speaker 06:
So the court has asked me, and this is what we could bring to the table if given a choice.

[00:09:27] Speaker 06:
My seven months were due to illness, and I frankly was not well.

[00:09:34] Speaker 06:
I had several operations to my leg.

[00:09:38] Speaker 06:
I was on painkillers.

[00:09:40] Speaker 06:
I didn't even know to write a declaration regarding that.

[00:09:47] Speaker 06:
I was really in terrible shape.

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
Give them for rebuttal.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
I will do so, your honor.

[00:10:26] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:10:28] Speaker 02:
I am Anita Susan Brenner with law offices of Torres and Brenner, and I represent defendant and appellee County of Los Angeles.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
Does the court have any questions?

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
I would just point out that this is not a case where

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
We have the benefit of a number of transcripts attached to both the verified complaint and verified First Amendment complaint that indicate that in June of 2018, the teenager moved in with her aunt, Shanta Montgomery.

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
And by October, which seems reasonable, the aunt went into court, not to a civil court,

[00:11:33] Speaker 02:
And during that time, it was disclosed to the court that the minor had alleged sexual abuse by her father.

[00:11:45] Speaker 02:
The court, under California Probate Code Section 1513, referred the investigation to the local child welfare agency, which is the county's DCFS.

[00:11:59] Speaker 02:
DCFS did a report, advised in the report that the allegation was unfounded.

[00:12:07] Speaker 02:
And as the months went on, the trial judge, who was also a defendant in this case and then dismissed, opined that even if the allegation was unfounded, there was a situation where there was a lack of trust between the minor and the parents, which

[00:12:40] Speaker 02:
of yes because it's contained in the exhibits that were part of the verified First Amendment complaint which was dismissed and with respect to the de novo review of the motion to dismiss I would submit that it the court does not need to reach it because on its face the First Amendment complaint does not state any Monell claim against the county however

[00:13:10] Speaker 02:
discretion in denying the plaintiffs the chance to amend again, it could be considered because the facts are verified and in documents attached to the First Amendment complaint.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
There's no possible way to amend this complaint to state a Monell claim against the County of Los Angeles.

[00:13:34] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:14:32] Speaker 03:
were present at that hearing.

[00:14:34] Speaker 03:
The court was also satisfied that the minor's preference and concerns with regard to trust issues enough was enough to justify the temporary order that was in place.

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
the system works.

[00:16:00] Speaker 03:
It was discussed with the court before that took place and the court approved that that was something that could be done in this case.

[00:16:08] Speaker 03:
Nothing was

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
example of where the police helped a private person in an eviction and says this is analogous.

[00:16:45] Speaker 04:
What's your response to that?

[00:16:48] Speaker 03:
It's not when there's nothing unique about the facts that this situation was nothing so unusual.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
A temporary order was given by the court which in response to

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
an inference that there's improper joint action or conspirative motive.

[00:17:39] Speaker 03:
You just don't reach the four tests that are enunciated in the code in the cases.

[00:17:52] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, Henry Whitehead of KDN-LLP on behalf of Defendant of MAP-LEA, Shawton Montgomery.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
As to Ms.

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
Montgomery, the allegations of the initial complaint and the first amended complaint only allege privileged litigation conduct by my client, who went to a probate guardianship proceeding out of concern for the welfare of her niece.

[00:18:20] Speaker 00:
All of that conduct is completely privileged under California Civil Code 47B.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
Appellate's opening brief does not address this issue at all.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
gave them the opportunity to do so.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
The reply brief, again, is silent on this issue.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
Pardon me, Your Honor.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
That omission speaks for itself.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
All of Miss Montgomery's conduct is completely privileged, and we respectfully request that the Court affirm the District Court's dismissal.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
I'm happy to answer any questions.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
the appellee state of California.

[00:19:03] Speaker 01:
The state's position is that there was no abuse of discretion by the district's court in its decision to deny appellants leave to file an untimely opposition to the state's motion to dismiss seven months after the deadline.

[00:19:15] Speaker 01:
The district's court's subsequent grant of state's motion to dismiss was appropriate as briefed before this court.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
Unless the court has any questions, the state will submit on the briefing.

[00:19:28] Speaker 01:
Apparently not.

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:19:43] Speaker 06:
It appears to appellants in this case that the egregious behavior by Ms.

[00:19:52] Speaker 06:
Montgomery and Mr. Spiller before the court should not be sanctioned by this court on appeal.

[00:20:03] Speaker 06:
We would request an opportunity to amend the complaint further and see if we can bring further