Respondents Were Able To Supplement Lack Of Reporter’s Transcript Of Hearing Through CCP § 909; Appeal Sanctions Request By Respondents Denied.
Respondents judgment debtors were awarded $14,850 in fees for their opponents’ failure to file a judgment satisfaction, with there being a fee entitlement basis through a mandatory fee-shifting statute for such a failure as codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 724.080. Appellants challenged that notion that any fee order was actually made based primarily on the absence of a reporter’s transcript of a hearing, but that premise was rejected soundly in Taylor Concrete Pumping Corp. v. Zippy’s Currency X-Change, Inc., Case No. B258831 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2015) (unpublished).
The problem here was that other documents of record did show a fee award was made by the trial judge. However, in an interesting appellate practice aspect relating to this cause, the reviewing court did grant respondents’ motion for the appellate court to consider additional evidence under CCP § 909, namely, a declaration by respondents’ counsel explaining what happened at the hearing. Because there were other documents which meshed consistently with this declaration and it was essentially a “gap filler,” the appellate court granted the motion and sustained that a fee order had been entered.
Respondents moved for sanctions against appellants under CCP § 128.5(a). However, that was the wrong section because it only applies to trial courts. The right section was CCP § 907 as far as appeal sanctions was concerned, but the request was denied because respondents failed to follow California Rules of Court, rule 8.276 procedures requiring that that the request be filed in a separate motion with a supporting declaration.