The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, January 27, 2016. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Review Granted
Jameson v. Desta, S230899—Review Granted — January 27, 2016
This case presents the following question: In the case of a litigant who has been granted a waiver of court reporter’s fees pursuant to Government Code sections 68086 and 68631, can the Superior Court employ a policy that has the practical effect of denying the services of an official court reporter to such a litigant, if the result is to preclude such persons from procuring and providing a verbatim transcript for appellate review?
In a medical negligence case, at a hearing 10 days before the commencement of the jury trial, the court “informed the parties that ‘the Court no longer provides a court reporter for civil trials, and that parties have to provide their own reporters for trial.’ The jury trial was not reported and there is no indication in the record that either party sought to provide a court reporter for the trial.”
The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division One, held in a published decision, Jameson v. Desta (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 491, that the indigent plaintiff was not entitled to an official court reporter even though he obtained a fee waiver for a court reporter pursuant to Government Code sections 68086 and 68631. It thus affirmed the judgment for the defendant. The court explained “the record on appeal does not contain a reporter’s transcript. [Plaintiff] is therefore precluded from obtaining a reversal of the trial court’s ruling granting [defendant’s] motion for nonsuit.” The court further held the trial court did not err in holding the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment because he failed to establish the amount of damages suffered.
In re Tyler R., S231144—Review Granted and Held — January 27, 2016
The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in In re R.T., S226416, which presents the following issue: In a juvenile dependency proceeding, does Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), authorize dependency jurisdiction without a finding that parental fault or neglect is responsible for the failure or inability to supervise or protect the child?
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven, held in a published decision, In re Tyler R. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1250, that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that a parent’s severe disability posed a sufficient safety risk to warrant loss of parental custody rights.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
