Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. Nos. CV075717, CV087202
ELIA, J.
Appellants Kenneth and Leonora Campbell seek review of a ruling denying their application for a waiver of fees for the preparation of a transcript in a related appeal, H032473. Appellants argue that the court denied their application based on the erroneous belief that the court reporter was an independent contractor. We will affirm the order.
Background
On December 28, 2007, appellants filed a notice of appeal in two consolidated superior court cases, CV075717 and CV087202. In January 2008 Kenneth Campbell (Kenneth) submitted an "Application for Waiver of Additional Court Fees and Costs" to exempt him from paying for a court reporter's transcript. The court ordered a hearing on the matter in order to resolve the question of Kenneth's standing to make the waiver request. At that hearing on January 18, 2008, the Honorable James C. Emerson, who had heard the petition in H032473, reminded Kenneth of his prior determination that Kenneth lacked standing to proceed in this case, as Leonora was the only proper petitioner. Kenneth acknowledged the ruling, but he said that it was "the subject of appeal that's pending." The court responded that although lack of standing was clear, it was a subject that could be reviewed by the appellate court. Nevertheless, the court again cautioned Kenneth: "[Y]ou may be digging yourself into a deeper hole because the more you persist in . . . representing your mother the more illegal . . . it appears to be." Kenneth said he was representing only himself, though he acknowledged that it was his mother's administrative hearing that was the subject of the underlying judicial challenge.
As in H032473, we will use Kenneth Campbell's first name solely to distinguish him from his mother, Leonora Campbell.
During this exchange Kenneth pointed out that he was alternatively asking for a "fee arrangement" in which he would pay the reporter's fee in three installments. The court stated its belief that such an arrangement was a matter between Kenneth and the court reporter; but Kenneth expressed his understanding that the court reporter "is under the statutes an employee of the court and as such subject to court supervision." The court explained that the court did supervise some aspects of the reporter's duties, but "how she collects her fees, and how she conducts that part of her business is totally independent from the court."
The court clarified its understanding of Kenneth's request as follows: "So really you're just asking for an arrangement with the court reporter that you pay her in three installments? [¶] [Mr. Campbell]: Yes, your Honor."
The court proposed to Kenneth that it deny the application for a fee waiver with the understanding that he would make a payment arrangement directly with the reporter. Kenneth expressly agreed to this disposition. The court concluded the hearing as follows: "Okay. So the request for a fee waiver will be denied. And I'll allow you to go ahead and make whatever arrangements you wish with my court reporter. [¶] [Mr. Campbell]: Thank you, your Honor."
Discussion
It is difficult to ascertain what appellants are seeking in this appeal. Kenneth's appellate brief essentially contains two contentions: (1) the court reporter is an employee, not an independent contractor; and (2) the denial of his application was "clearly an error and violation of court rules that should be corrected." Kenneth combines these two assertions in the assumption that the court denied his application "based exclusively upon its independent contractor ruling."
Missing in Kenneth's brief is any indication of how appellants believe the court's ruling should be "corrected"—or, in any event, why correction is required. Kenneth's statement that the court refused to "allow reasonable payments" of the reporter's fee is flatly contradicted by the record. It is beyond question that Kenneth unequivocally agreed to the denial of his application, as it enabled appellants to set up a payment schedule with the court reporter, as he had explicitly requested. Kenneth even points out that whatever arrangement he made with the reporter was entirely successful; appellants eventually paid the fee in full, and this court received and considered the transcript in deciding the appeal in H032473.
We previously ordered this case to be considered together with H032473. According to his declaration in a petition for writ of supersedeas in H032473, he completed payments of the fee for the reporter's transcript.
The only clear conclusion we can draw from Kenneth's brief and the appellate record is that Kenneth has pursued this appeal (and in the process, obtained a waiver of the appellate filing fee) in order to proffer an entirely frivolous protest of a secondary point in judicial reasoning that produced no adverse consequences for appellants whatsoever. As in the prior writ proceeding, Judge Emerson was unfailingly courteous on this occasion, even as he reminded Kenneth that he had no legal standing to challenge the denial of his mother's Medi-Cal benefits and was acting illegally by representing her in court. The judge proposed a solution to appellants' dilemma over the fee, Kenneth readily accepted the suggestion, and appellants followed through by paying the reporter the amount she was charging. Whether the court reporter was an independent contractor or an employee makes absolutely no difference to the outcome appellants sought and achieved in this case. Also plainly insufficient to establish prejudice is Kenneth's further complaint that had the application been granted, he would not have needed to obtain an order vacating dismissal of his appeal in H032473.
On January 29, 2008, this court dismissed the appeal in H032473 for failure to procure the record within the time limits allowed. Subsequently we ordered the appeal restored to active status with the additional requirement that appellants deposit the fees for preparation of the record within 10 days.
In short, no conceivable basis for reversal appears on this record. It does not help appellants for Kenneth to accuse the trial judge of making a ruling with an ulterior motive to obstruct appellate review of his ruling in H032473. Kenneth obtained exactly what he asked for, a payment arrangement with the court reporter. The assertion that the court misstated the employment status of the court reporter is completely irrelevant and moot. Thus, even if any error did occur, it not only was waived but was nonprejudicial in light of the solution reached jointly by Kenneth and the court and the satisfactory outcome achieved by all concerned.
Disposition
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RUSHING, P. J., PREMO, J.