Monzon

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Monzon argues the trial court erroneously concluded section 632.7 applies only to nonparties to a phone call. Atlantic Credit responds that the court’s interpretation is consistent with the text and legislative history of section 632.7, and applying the statute to parties would lead to absurd results. It also argues the rule of lenity counsels against any alternative interpretation. While this appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 183 (Smith), which holds section 632.7 forbids parties and nonparties to a phone call transmitted to or from a cellular or cordless telephone from recording the conversation without the consent of the other party or parties. (Smith, at pp. 871–880.) The Supreme Court, in other words, rejected Atlantic Credit and the trial court’s interpretation of section 632.7. The high court also explicitly rejected many of the arguments Atlantic Credit asserts

3 in its respondent’s brief.2 (See Smith, at pp. 874–878 [rejecting textual and legislative history arguments], pp. 879–880 [rejecting absurd results argument], pp. 880–881 [rejecting rule of lenity argument].) Smith is directly…