California Supreme Court Does Reiterate That Lack of Reporter’s Transcript Might Doom Fees Ruling Appeal.
Although a little far afield of what we normally devote our posts to, Jameson v. Desta, Case No. S230899 (Cal. Supreme Court July 5, 2018) (published) is on point in stressing that a reporter’s transcript should normally be processed to preserve errors committed at a state court’s fee hearing—especially where some discretion, versus legal conclusions, is involved.
Jameson held that a local superior court not allowing an in forma pauperis litigant to obtain a court reporter for hearings and trial could not pass muster on a statutory or fairness basis. Even with the budgetary constraints, the financially-strapped litigant should have been given the opportunity to have a trial reporter present such that a nonsuit had to be reversed based on the lack of a transcribed trial record to which the litigant was entitled.
In doing so, the California Supreme Court did cite to many cases indicating a lack of a reporter’s transcript might be dispositive, including one relating to fees—Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 447 (2000).
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye authored the unanimous opinion.
BLOG OBSERVATION—The appellate courts are far from uniform in their rulings as to when a RT will preclude the review of the merits of a fee ruling. If we were to distill some trends, a detailed written ruling may be sufficient (especially where legal de novo rulings are involved), but may not suffice where factual or discretionary rulings were involved (substantial evidence/abuse of discretion rulings where a RT might make a difference). This may need to be clarified by the state supreme court, which did indicate that budgetary restraints have required even well-heeled litigants to provide their own court reporter for important hearings or trials.