Leahy v. Hunt CA3

Filed 2/25/26 Leahy v. Hunt CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

LINDA LEAHY,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C101667

v. (Super. Ct. No. 23CV010289)

DANIEL HUNT,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Linda Leahy contends the trial court erred in denying her request for reasonable accommodation. Finding no trial court error or abuse of discretion, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Leahy filed a complaint against her former attorney Daniel Hunt, and Hunt demurred to the first amended complaint on statute of limitations grounds. According to a June 11, 20241 trial court order, Leahy filed a disability accommodation request

1 All subsequent dates refer to 2024 unless otherwise indicated.

1

on May 24 (the May 24 request), indicating that she was deaf and needed a closed captioner for a June 13 hearing on Hunt’s demurrer. The trial court indicated that it had granted the May 24 request for a closed captioner, and that it had reserved a closed captioner to provide real-time reporting at the June 13 hearing. According to the trial court, in her May 24 request, Leahy also asked for a court reporter and a certified transcript, but the trial court had ruled that those requests did not fall within California Rules of Court, rule 1.1002 because they related to memorializing the hearing for future use, not accessing or participating in the hearing itself; nevertheless, Leahy could make a separate request for a court reporter and a certified transcript. In a subsequent disability accommodation request signed by Leahy on June 6 and filed on June 11 (the June 6 request), Leahy asked for a continuance of the June 13 hearing, saying she was unable to proceed without full accommodation and that a continuance was the only reasonable accommodation under rule 1.100(a)(3) pending a writ of mandate review and decision by this court, citing In re Marriage of James & Christine C. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1261 [the trial court erred in denying a continuance as an accommodation when none of the specified grounds for denial were present]. Leahy’s attachment to her June 6 request added that she needed a continuance to obtain a certified, real-time captioning reporter’s transcript. On June 11, the trial court (Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi) ruled on the June 6 request. Referring to the prior May 24 request and order, the trial court stated that if Leahy’s June 6 request was again asking for a closed captioner to be present at the June 13 hearing, that request had already been granted. If the June 6 request was asking for a court reporter and a certified transcript, Leahy could make such requests, but not through the MC-410 disability accommodation request form. As for Leahy’s June 6