Deborah J. Carver vs. Michael W. Horner

Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1686, 1690, n. 3; Hunt v. Hackett (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 134, 137-138; Walker v. State Bar of California (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1107, 1116.2 Denying Taylor appointed counsel will not prevent him from receiving a service that the court otherwise provides.3

Second, it appears, under the circumstances of this case, that appointed counsel would exceed Rule 1.100's policy of providing disabled persons with full and equal access to court services, programs or activities. An “attorney's role” is to serve “as the client's confidential advisor and advocate, a loyal representative whose duty it is to present the client's case in the most favorable possible light.” U.S. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1984) 465 U.S. 805, 817. Appointed counsel here would take on a role far beyond basic provision of full and equal access to court services and proceedings.

3. CU0002207 Deborah J. Carver vs. Michael W. Horner

On the Court’s motion, the hearing regarding Plaintiff/Appellant Carver’s amended, proposed settled statement is vacated.

Plaintiff/Appellant elected in her December 23, 2025, notice designating the record on appeal to use a settled statement as the record of the oral proceedings in the superior court. See Rules of Court, rule 8.137. Given that Defendant/Respondent Horner did not file a notice under Rule 8.137(b)(4)(A), electing to provide a reporter’s transcript, Plaintiff/Appellant was obligated to file a proposed statement in the superior court within 30 days of December 23, 2025, that is, by on or about January 22, 2026.

Plaintiff/Appellant then proceeded to file various untimely proposed settled statements from February 17, 2026 to February 25, 2026. The operative untimely amended proposed statement, filed February 25, 2026, then was improperly noticed for hearing on March 20, 2026. See Rules of Court, rule 8.137(f)(1). (“No hearing will be held unless ordered....”) Judge Timothy Fall issued a tentative ruling in connection with the March 20, 2026, hearing, and continued the hearing to April 3, 2026 because Plaintiff had failed to notice her request for oral argument as required.

See Local Rule 4.05.03, Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1). To date, it does not appear that Defendant/Respondent has filed his response as required (within 20 days of appellant’s service of the proposed statement). See Rules of Court, rule 8.137(e).