Dogan v. Comanche Hills Apartments, Inc., No. D072328 (D4d1 Jan. 22, 2019)
In Jameson v. Desta, the Supreme Court held that indigent litigants with fee waivers have a right to a free court reporter. If the failure to provide a reporter results in the litigant’s inability to litigate her appeal due to the lack of an inadequate record, an appellate court needs to reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiff got nonsuited after the close of her evidence But there was no reporter due to the same policy that was invalidated in Jameson. In reversing, the Court of Appeal holds that the description of the evidence in the trial court’s minute order was not a meaningful substitute for an actual reporter’s transcript. And although the trial in this case happened before the Jameson decision, the Court holds that the Jameson rule applies retroactively to all cases that are not yet final on appeal.
Reversed.
Showing posts with label jameson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jameson. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Thursday, July 5, 2018
A Good Day for Access to Justice
Jameson v. Desta, No. S230899 (Cal. Jul. 5, 2018).
The Court of Appeal decision in this case bothered me so much that I contacted the plaintiff and offered to represent him pro bono. We got review granted back in 2016. Today, the Court held in our favor in a 7-0 opinion by the Chief Justice. The short and slightly oversimplified of it is that the right to equal access to the courts requires state courts to provide indigent litigants with an official court reporter to transcribe their trials. But you should read it for yourself. There’s a lot of other good stuff in there too.
Court of Appeal reversed.
The Court of Appeal decision in this case bothered me so much that I contacted the plaintiff and offered to represent him pro bono. We got review granted back in 2016. Today, the Court held in our favor in a 7-0 opinion by the Chief Justice. The short and slightly oversimplified of it is that the right to equal access to the courts requires state courts to provide indigent litigants with an official court reporter to transcribe their trials. But you should read it for yourself. There’s a lot of other good stuff in there too.
Court of Appeal reversed.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
One More Chance to Lose . . .
Jameson v. Desta, No. D066793 (D4d1 Oct. 20, 2015)
Pro se Plaintiff in this thirteen-year-old case is on his fourth appeal. The first three times he won; over a ten-year span, he managed to get two of trial court’s dismissal orders and a summary judgment reversed. This time, the trial court nonsuited him during his opening statement. Whether right or wrong, he forfeits his appeal on that issue because he couldn’t afford a court reporter to make a record. That seems pretty arbitrary and unfair, particularly since the Legislature recently modified the reporter fee statute—Government Code § 68086(b)—to say that for an indigent litigant with a filing fee waiver, the official reporter’s fee is waived. The court here thinks differently, because the trial court in question does not generally provide official reporters for trials. It makes parties hire their own. So it’s not a question of a fee waiver, but of plaintiff’s inability to afford the private reporter pro tem he needed to hire to make his record. Still seems unfair.
Affirmed.
Full disclosure: I am representing the appellant in this case pro bono in filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. We’ll see . . . .
**Update: Review Granted!
Pro se Plaintiff in this thirteen-year-old case is on his fourth appeal. The first three times he won; over a ten-year span, he managed to get two of trial court’s dismissal orders and a summary judgment reversed. This time, the trial court nonsuited him during his opening statement. Whether right or wrong, he forfeits his appeal on that issue because he couldn’t afford a court reporter to make a record. That seems pretty arbitrary and unfair, particularly since the Legislature recently modified the reporter fee statute—Government Code § 68086(b)—to say that for an indigent litigant with a filing fee waiver, the official reporter’s fee is waived. The court here thinks differently, because the trial court in question does not generally provide official reporters for trials. It makes parties hire their own. So it’s not a question of a fee waiver, but of plaintiff’s inability to afford the private reporter pro tem he needed to hire to make his record. Still seems unfair.
Affirmed.
Full disclosure: I am representing the appellant in this case pro bono in filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. We’ll see . . . .
**Update: Review Granted!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)