Rhue v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Nov 28, 2017 No. B283248Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A trial court abuses its discretion when it arbitrarily denies a litigant's request for a settled statement, thereby depriving the litigant of their right to appeal.

Issues

Whether a trial court may deny a request for a settled statement when the underlying proceedings were not reported.
Whether a trial court's difficulty in reconstructing oral proceedings constitutes a justifiable excuse for denying a settled statement.

Disposition. Writ granted.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a trial court may not ‘deprive a litigant of his right of appeal by simply refusing to perform a plain duty.’”

“a trial court’s stated difficulty in remembering what happened during the proceedings is not a ground to deny a settled statement.”

“the trial court here could, by its own actions, have denied Rhue’s right to appeal. That was an abuse of discretion.”

Filed 11/28/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

HAROLYN RHUE, No. B283248

Petitioner, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC590227) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent; ______________________________

SAM NAM LLC, et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; application for writ of mandate. Writ granted. Harolyn Rhue, in pro. per.; Bahar Law Office and Sarvenaz Bahar, for Petitioner. Frederick R. Bennett, County Council, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, for Respondent. No appearance by Real Parties in Interest.

_________________________

In California, litigants who comply with relevant statutes and rules have a right to appeal an adverse judgment; the trial court may not arbitrarily deny a litigant that right. In this matter, the trial court refused a timely request by petitioner to preserve a record so that she might appeal. Because the trial court abused its discretion in doing so, we grant the petitioner’s request for a writ of mandate and order the preparation of a settled statement.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Petitioner Harolyn Rhue sued Signet Domain, LLC and Sam Nam (real parties in interest) in August 2015, in an action to quiet title. Neither of the real parties appeared in the action, and, in December 2015, the court entered their default. In May 2016, the trial court, on its own motion, set a hearing to dismiss the complaint. Two months later, the court vacated the default against Sam Nam, who still had not appeared, and offered Rhue an opportunity to amend her complaint. In August, on Rhue’s motion for reconsideration, the court denied the motion and granted judgment on the pleadings against Rhue. The court’s order stated no reason for its action. Rhue moved to obtain a settled statement, as the August hearing had not been reported. The trial court denied the motion in May 2017, concluding, “no settled statement is necessary or required.”1 Rhue filed a writ, seeking relief from this Court; we

Rhue v. Superior Court

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

SEGAL, J.

AI Brief