A California Court of Appeal expressed its concern over the due process implications of reviewing a trial courts decision that incorporated reasons that were not documented due to the absence of a court reporter. In Maxwell v. Dolezal (No. B254893, filed 11/4/14), the court cautioned that although the lack of a transcript did not preclude its review of an order sustaining a demurrer, the case was an exception because the operative complaint and demurrer were sufficient to permit effective appellate review. The plaintiff in Maxwell, acting in pro per, had filed an action for invasion of privacy and breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had used his photograph and website without his consent and that he did not receive the money, food and housing in exchange for the intellectual property rights per their agreement. The defendant demurred on the grounds that the complaint was uncertain and it could not be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract was written, oral, or implied. At the hearing on the demurrer, no court reporter was present. Nonetheless, the trial courts minute order explicitly sustained the demurrer [f]or the reasons stated in open court, without further elaborating. The trial court also denied the plaintiff further leave to amend on the ground that he was unable to articulate in open court a reasonable basis for any additional allegations that would remedy the deficiencies. The court of appeal noted that it was profoundly concerned about the due process implications of a proceeding in which the court, aware that no record will be made, incorporates within its ruling reasons that are not documented for the litigants or the reviewing court. Reprinted courtesy of Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 23:02:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015